DonRamsay

The new RAAus constitution when presented to the members for a vote will of course be exemplary. The new constitution allows for expansion of RAAus into any area of aviation and would easily accommodate a merger with SAAA. That would be the easiest aspect to manage. Personally, I couldn't see a merger with SAAA or anyone else being a priority in the next 12 months.

I don't know where that idea comes from - Directors will be elected by the members not just appointed by the Board. There are 12 part-time Board Members at the moment who are spread from one end of Aus to the other. It is essential that the CEO be the first point of contact for feedback on the draft constitution. He is not entitled to dismiss out of hand anyone's suggestions. The present form of the draft constitution is the considered view of the Board not the CEO. The CEO works for the Board not the other way around. The CEO has been working very closely with the President Mick Monck on the draft constitution with advice from a very senior aviation lawyer. I'm sorry, but I must disagree. There has been extensive consultation already with the members - have a look at the link in the latest email newsletter. Mostly in print but there have been numerous opportunities for members to talk with the Board directly including the AGM and its web conferencing facility and visits to many airfields across Australia. Feedback has been positive and supportive so far. If you want to change the Board's position it is your right to do so. My only recommendation is that if you want to make a difference then now is the time.

Frank, I accept that there are aspects of the draft constitution that are take it or leave it. In particular, the form of incorporation and fewer, nationally elected (not appointed) directors. These were the things that drove us to release an early draft in time for review at the AGM and, by internet link from anywhere in Australia. To the best of my knowledge (far from exhaustive) there has been broad acceptance of these key issues. The people who chose that direction (before I was elected to the Board in 2015) were your elected Board Members. I am satisfied that all these things make good sense but then I have been arguing for them on here since for ever. I hadn't made up my mind about the form of incorporation back then but in trying to work with the Canberra (ACT) regulator for Incorporated Associations and finding them useless on issues of governance, I quickly came to see that there had to be something that suited us better. The Incorporated Association works fine with a single State location Aero Club where the Committee do the work themselves but in national body like RAAus, it is simply inappropriate. National voting for a smaller board would certainly have been part of the output from the first Constitution Review Committee if it had not been scuttled by a former Nth Qld rep . I am satisfied that reasonable arguments have been put to every member of RAAus as to why these key strategies were adopted. If you are not convinced then I'd simply ask that you re-read what has been sent to you and point out the flaws in the logic and tell me what would be a better as in a more effective, more efficient and more reliable approach. I think that if we don't get the new constitution approved by the membership we will be doomed to repeat all the mistakes of the past that had RAAus on its last legs. Poor governance, mates looking after mates and giving them jobs working for RAAus and those incompetent mates undoing the rectification work of the last two years. We could then see approvals being given to mates for aircraft that even CASA has no authority to approve as happened leading to another crackdown by CASA and thousands of aircraft being grounded as happened in 2013.

What follows is my personal info and views and in no way is meant to represent the RAAus Boar, Staff or members. Firstly a little history, not all of which I am an expert on so open to validation. There was a time when there was enormous animosity between the RAAus Board (some key members) and the SAA hierarchy. Most of that had faded by 2012 when I got closer to what was going on. At NATFLY, Temora in 2012, the Board of RAAus invited the Board of the SAAA to have dinner together on the Friday evening. That went ahead and was very cordial. There had been a clean out of the old guard at SAAA and the new management group were happy to talk about amalgamation . . . one day. As it turned out RAAus was not a mature enough (read professional enough) organisation to merge with anyone . . . yet. Both sides could see value in the principle. RAAus then went through a rebirth over the next few very troublesome years but came out of it looking much more evolved and professional. RAAus is getting close to the stage where it has systems and procedures that could support effective and efficient membership services to other aviation organisations like SAAA, GRA, HGFA, etc. Merger becomes desirable when there is a meeting of aims and objectives - a common will. Economic benefits and improved political influence can come from a large single, well funded voice than from a smattering of amatuer poorly funded groups. In business you might enter a merger to achieve better shareholder value but in the case of RAAus and other RAOs I think the merger is done because you are a good fit and the economic and political benefits are a pleasant bonus. I believe that RAAus would benefit from the skills and systems SAAA has in place with regard to home building. SAAA could benefit from the more evolved RAAus management structure and administrative and IT systems. It may not happen in 2016 but it should be the goal for both organisations to gain the attractive synergy that could flow from a single larger organisation. A merged SAAA and RAAus would not be a simple thing. It would have to have CASA involved up to its eyeballs as I think there would need to be a complete rethinking of how aviation is divided and regulated. Instead of GA & RA we need to get it accepted that there is Commercial aviation and non-commercial aviation. The rules for each can be different so the fare paying public gets the benefit of direct CASA supervision and non commercial (recreational) aviation becomes fully self administering, much as RAAus is now. Why should the aircraft built and flown by SAAA members be regulated differently than the aircraft built and flown by RAAus members? Why on earth should CASA be involved in gliding? Like I said, just my personal views.

Frank, I'm sure you would agree that if there is extreme opposition to any aspect then it is essential that that opposition is communicated, succinctly, to the CEO who is coordinating the project. From all the personal appearances at many airports/fly-ins etc., by the President Mick Monck and CEO Michael Linke (I was at the Evans Head meeting) there has been no "extreme opposition" expressed and there has been general acceptance of the key elements of the proposal. At least you didn't say it was "Don's Party" . . . really over that one. In fact, I was not involved at the birth of this one (nor its conception). As you may recall, I didn't join the Board until not long before the October 2015 AGM at Bundy. While I had urged Constitution reform as early as 2012 when I was previously on the Board and got the first Constitution Reform Committee formed, I was not involved in producing the current draft. However, a big reason for my running to fill the spot left vacant by Andy was to see the reform process through. I have been bashing away at constitution reform since 2010 when I found such a poor standard of governance in place. I am not going to allow anything to get to a vote that does not give precedence to members rights and benefits. There are associated documents that go with the new constitution like the yet to be released disputes procedure and members charter that give President Mick Monck the confidence to make the statements he has like "At no time can a members' rights be reduced or removed by the board." I would urge every member to read and respond to the last newsletter and the next six. Perhaps 80% of members will adopt the RAAus standard "I just want to go flying" and take no interest in the new constitution. But, on RecFlying we have a group of people who think hard and express their views freely and it is important that you don't just talk to each other but include the CEO in the conversation. As I have said privately to a few RAAus members, I would be pleased to receive direct communications from anyone who feels they have not had a fair hearing from the CEO. To confirm what Shags wrote above, this is not the final draft nor the document that will go to the 10,000 members for their vote. If it were then what would be the point of the extensive consultation planned for the next 6 weeks? Apart from the feedback received during the next 6 weeks, it will be subject to expert legal review to ensure it is a robust, error free document.

On 24 March 2016, RAAus issued a newsletter on the subject of the new constitution. It would seem than none on this thread have read the following passage: "Over the coming seven weeks, RAAus will be communicating with members as we draw closer to an important vote on the future of RAAus. Each week we will communicate key information to members about this forthcoming transformation. This week we answer some frequently asked questions." (my added emphasis) If you've read the newsletter then we have something we can discuss but if you want to reject the project out of hand there is no room for discussion. What I would agree is that the draft released at the AGM last October now looks a bit premature. But the aim was to get something to the members that gave exposure to some of the big ticket items like a blank-sheet rewrite, a smaller Board and a single region (Australia). To that extent, the release was very successful. Members got a good look at the direction we were heading and, at the AGM and many of the airports visited since then, it has been well received. I am confident that over the next 6 weeks or so, the aspects that concern many on this thread, not unreasonably, will be shown to have the protections in place so that your worst fears and even moderate concerns are eased. I would be very pleased to hear, personally, if you communicate with the CEO and are dissatisfied with the response you get.

The USA data is a credit to Jabiru and especially Jab airframes. I suspect that Jabiru North America have a more proactive attitude compared with Australia. As I understand it they fit better brakes that are not allowed to be fitted in Australia and require every Jab engine to have full electronic monitoring. They also fit Jab engines to their allied product, the Arion Lightning. They could not do business in the highly litigious USA if their products were falling out of the sky or unable to pull up on a short, overshot runway. My personal belief is that looking at fatalities as statistics is not clever. Each fatality represents an extreme outcome that warrants exhaustive examination and analysis. Statistically, there are too few to try and draw trends. Obtain an understanding of the contributing factors and set measures in place, where practical, to ensure that there is no repeat. If we were looking at all incidents, then the populations are vastly larger and more amenable to statistical analysis over time. One special type of incident bears closest examination - potential plus actual fatalities. A potential fatality may in retrospect just look like an unreported hangar tale of a brush with death requiring no more rectification that a change of underwear. A dint of good luck and some good piloting skills averted it from being an actual fatality. In my mind, every time an aircraft loses motivation while aloft, however caused, you have a potential fatality on your hands. Back in the days when self taught pilots were flying self designed and built rag and tube under 300 ft in the back paddock, chances are there were always going to be a landing area beneath you well within their short gliding range. But, losing engine power at, say, 7,500 ft, choosing the right piece of turf for your compulsory ALA is a bit hit and miss. You have time on your side from that altitude but as you tune your radio to 121.5 and punch out a MAYDAY and switch on your PLB/ELT/EPIRB you have christened the event a potential fatality. That we rarely lose anyone in forced landings is a tribute to our training and discipline in avoiding tiger country. But it always involves an element of good luck. I certainly would not want to be combatting the equally probable alternative - bad luck - in an off airport landing. Point is, and you suspected there might be one eventually, every in-the-air engine failure is a potential fatality and should be regarded with exactly the same degree of seriousness as an actual fatality. On the other hand, landing incidents are rarely fatal but much more common and while it is important to understand the causes it is not as critical as potential fatalities. I know of RAAus pilots who have survived multiple (>10) in-the-air engine failures and they have the view that it is "no biggie" and we shouldn't get excited about it - just train and prepare for when it happens. Clearly, this is the antithesis of my way of looking at it.

One thing I really miss about Natfly is not getting to catch up with good mates like you Neil.

Nev, this may sound ridiculously optimistic but I think that the "Jabiru Solution" would not have happened under Mark Skidmore's leadership. I am a little disappointed he has not been of a mind to end this fiasco but I understand what a deep hole was dug the day before he was to take office. The big problem with lifting the instrument is that it puts CASA in the unenviable position of saying "All Jabiru engines now have the CASA seal of approval". If CASA had been a lot less vindictive and a lot cleverer they could have quietly ramped up the pressure on Rod Stiff to DEFCON 1 and achieved the improvements on the widely known faults (thru bolts etc.) and then not be in the position they are now . . . Between a rock and a hard place. We have the 10 point test provided by Mr Skidmore to test any new action by CASA and it is being used effectively by the industry. A massive test in my view will be what happens to the crazy idea about legislating fuel reserves with massive penalties of strict liability. The CAAP (234?) is fine as it is and leaves common sense and discretion to the PIC. The proposed Regs are just idiotic and show a total lack of understanding of aviation.

In a democratic society such as RAAus, the ballot box is the answer. Back in about 2010 when a few of discovered how poorly RAAus was being run, we got together and mounted a campaign of asking pointed questions at Natfly sessions. WE got a very poor response from the Board then and decided we couldn't fix the issues as ordinary members and campaigned to be elected to the Board with the attempt to fix from within. Unfortunately, I was the only one to get elected and it was 2 against 1 in the Exec and about 10 against one on the full Board. Next we tried a members revolt and at the Queanbeyan meeting we got tremendous support. Shortly after that, reform-minded members ended up with a majority on the Board. Some of the old guard had been replaced and it wasn't long before virtually all were gone and were replaced by progressives who understood and respected good governance. Point is that in a representative democracy, if you don't like the way it is there is a way to fix it and that way is open to all who are prepared to commit the time energy and even emotion. Couldn't agree more. If statistics are ever going to be helpful you need more and accurate reporting of issues. If every Jabiru engine fault were reported and accurately documented then sensible conclusions could be drawn from an honest evaluation of the data. Same of course could be said for Rotax. CASA will make decisions based on poor quality raw data if that's the only official data available. That does not excuse them though from spurious unsupported conclusions or actions.

Ok, time for my apology, Russ. I may have gone in a bit hard . Unfortunately, your comment set me off intemperately largely because it was so brief and seemed typical of some of the loose, unsupported comments posted here from time to time. Vague and derogatory. However, I now appreciate that these were more than superficial comments and you may have had good reason to think that way. All I can say is that I know the RAAus Board is not complicit in any way in the action taken by CASA and, as stated before, has vehemently objected to CASA and demanded that they justify their action or withdraw. I don't know of any current Board Member that is anti-Jabiru or even secretly supports CASA's actions. The preferences of ex-Board Members no longer interests me. That bell is rung. What I can say is that it is widely known that three of the then and current Board Members operate Jabiru's in their flying schools. For example, the Lone Eagle Flying school in SEQ, where Trevor Bange is the CFI and L2, routinely gets 1,000 hours from their Jabs before a top end overhaul is needed. Their operating and maintenance practices are what makes their Jab engines so reliable and enduring. I can assure you that if there was one "rogue" Board Member, he/she would run into a great deal of opposition from the three Board Members who operate several Jabs each.

The suggestion here I'm guessing refers to a deceased former Board Member that I counted as a personal friend and a bloody good bloke. I have never heard it suggested from any Board Member that that person was involved in any way in the action CASA took. In any case, there is no way one person is going to be able to sway 12 others to support an unjustified action that would cripple the company that that made Recreational Aviation in Australia. Even the most ardent Rotax supporters recognise that Jabiru goes a long way towards keeping Rotax prices down.

Really? Got some evidence for that have you Russ? That is a scurrilous unsupported assertion. Seems you are falling for CASA's pathetic attempt to tie in the ATSB and RAAus to CASA's unjustified action. What I can tell you from my sources is that the only involvement from RAAus was to provide the raw data that CASA demanded and have the legal right to demand and RAAus is legally obliged to provide on demand. My sources, incidentally, was not from any personal involvement as I was not on the Board at the time the data was provided nor when CASA took their ill-considered action. My sources are all published statements from RAAus. The action taken by CASA came as a shock not only to RAAus but to virtually everyone except the few people responsible for it at CASA. The previous leadership group at CASA did this on their very last day on the job and left the mess for the new CEO/DAS Mark Skidmore to live with. RAAus at the highest levels made immediate, in-person representations to the Director of Aviation Safety and his senior staff objecting vehemently to the action taken against Jabiru. These representations involved demanding the safety case used by CASA to justify their actions. No analysis has ever been provided that justifies CASA's actions. At no time ever has RAAus condoned the action taken by CASA. Without evidence to back up such an utterly outlandish claim you lower the tone of this discussion. That the data provided by RAAus and the ATSB was, as you put it "poorly analysed" is hardly the fault of RAAus. And what on earth are you implying by putting inverted commas around the word data. Are you trying to suggest that RAAus and the ATSB falsified the raw data supplied to CASA? To my knowledge the Board of RAAus was unanimous in strenuously objecting to the action taken by CASA. Do any on the Board prefer to fly with Rotax than Jabiru? Yes of course and having personally outlaid a heap of cash for a 912iS I'm obviously one. But, like many and perhaps a majority of Recreational Pilots, I learned to fly in a Jabiru and value the experience very highly. Regardless of what I prefer to fly, I am absolutely committed to the fact that the CASA action was never justified by sound analysis of the available data. I have never heard one Board member express the slightest support for CASA's instrument only the opposite. Clearly I resent your post Russ as it lowers the tone of RecFlying. This sort of ill-considered post turns reasonable people away from the Forum and at best it spreads mis-information. Not happy, Don

Crazy but CASA has hundreds of people working for them and they make a mess of it. Yet, on this forum alone there must be 20 or 30 people who could do a better job.

Yes.

Agai Thanks again Jim. I'm on a train at the moment . . . If the CASA "Deed of Agreement" is not a deed, it would fall foul of contract law because it is, in my view, a lopsided deal between unequals - Mighty CASA and minow RAAus.Can a deed include exchange of cash? There needs to be evidence of capability as the 4th test of a contract formation.

Thanks again Jim. That is my understanding. A deed is a contract but a contract is not a deed. I could wonder if CASA used a deed on RAAus to get around the issue you have identified as well as to avoid the fairness principles built into law of contracts.

I am not going to get into an argument with a lawyer about whether a deed is different from a contract. My understanding goes back to a study of the law of contracts and my inexpert understanding is that great swathes of the law of contracts does not apply to a deed. My knowledge of deeds is limited to the concept that if you want to avoid the impact of much of the law of contracts - use a deed. A contract between unequals such as CASA and RAAus containing the words in the Deed of Agreement with CASA would in my understanding be unenforceable and that again to my limited understanding is why CASA use a deed rather than a contract. But, I could be wrong . . .

Does it matter that the arrangement with CASA is, strictly speaking, a Deed rather than a contract.

I see "Strict Liability" as the opposite of natural justice. It is lazy and unjust. Very efficient for CASA. Do we agree thought that it works reasonably well for traffic police? If you are caught doing 50km/h over the posted speed limit should the Police have to prove, for every instance, that that was unsafe? In CASA's case I think it is overused in the extreme. Quite often I would think the circumstances need to be examined not just wham bam thank you mam. GA looks as if it is on the Very Seriously Ill list. Prognosis is terminal. I wonder if it will ever be given a break before it is killed off completely. I believe RAAus could be a solution to the lingering death of GA. Re-classify all not for reward aviation as "recreational". Then have sensible medicals and maintenance regimes. It could breathe new life into GA. RA is only a threatened species - plenty of life left in that one.

Do you mean that they have satisfied RSA authorities that the aircraft is safe at 700kg? They were originally designed and built for 700+kg for RSA. They then chased LSA in the USA as that was the easy (and cheap!) way to get them onto the market in the USA. Pretty sure I'd not want VLA if it comes with LAME maintenance. I cope OK now with 600kg MTOW. Solo I can take the full 150L and 15kg baggage and with my wife on board I can still take 5 hrs fuel (4hr + 1hr res). Just means I have to top up before the return trip.

I doubt you'd get much of an argument from CASA to that statement. And you wouldn't get much argument from most at RAAus on that statement. Please explain . . . For those who don't know "The Act" by heart: CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 97AB Charging of fees by external service providers (1) An external service provider may charge a person such fee as is agreed between the external service provider and the person for any service provided by the external service provider under this Act, the regulations or the Civil Aviation Orders. (2) The fee is payable to the external service provider. (3) The fee must not be such as to amount to taxation. (4) If the fee is unpaid, it is a debt due to the external service provider and is recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction. (5) In this section: "external service provider " means a person who is the holder of a delegation under this Act or the regulations, or who is an authorised person within the meaning of the regulations, other than a person in any of the following capacities: (b) an officer; © a person who provides services to CASA under a contract with CASA; (d) a person who, under a contract with CASA, provides services to the public on CASA's behalf; (e) an employee of a person referred to in paragraph © or (d). "provide a service " includes deal with an application or request or do anything.

Not killing yourself or others.

Substitute "shareholders" for "members" and I think you will find that all companies exist for the benefit of the members (shareholders) of the company. They have no other reason for being unless they are a Government commission that has been corporatised - they only exist for the benefit of the employees of the corporation .

John, I received a response from the Airplane Factory. They have approx 70 Sling 2 (not LSA) aircraft ZU (our VH) registered with MTOW 700kg in South Africa with many in flying schools (factory built). They are in the process of getting VLA reg for EASA countries at, of course, 700kg. Point being that I think there is enough evidence around to say that the Sling (2 seater) can fly safely at 700 kg MTOW with a stall below 45 KCAS. What happens in Australia in future will be interesting to say the least. Just for fun, I ran some W&B calcs at 700kg with 150L fuel (full tanks) 160kg (pilot + pax) and 35kg baggage (max allowed). The resultant C of G: min = 1.635 calc = 1.779 (Just a tad towards rearwards) max = 1.808 Can't imagine I'd ever have even 20kg of baggage which would move the CofG slightly towards the centre (1.763) if you add the 15kg saving back onto the pilots. Don