DonRamsay

Thanks for the "constructive criticism". I'm a bit caught up at the moment with visitors from overseas and Mother-in-law's 95th birthday. I will respond to your questions and suggestions as soon as I can. Don

Noted. True of course, I had forgotten. I don't need to look them up as I have them all on speed-dial. The thinking is that members should communicate with the people who can solve their issues directly rather than Board Members mulling over the 20 year strategic plan. The staff really only need one boss, the CEO, and not the CEO plus 13 Board Members. I can't see the point of posting issues with the format of SportPilot on RecFlying when it has no control over what the magazine looks like. The editor Brian Bigg is always happy to discuss possible improvements and any technical issues and the CEO is the only person who can force changes through if there is an unresolvable dispute. 2016.

Kasper, 1. If you look back I said " . . . assisting RAAus with the drafting" not writing it for us. It is not a lawyer's job to set the principles being addressed it is his job to make sure what we are trying to say is what gets written down and is enforceable i.e. not unlawful. 2. My email address is on the RAAus website and in SportPilot for all to see. 3. That's your view and one to which you are entitled. Not much point talking about V1 any more, lets go again when V2 is distributed.

All true of course and that was considered but the decision was taken to simplify things by becoming a grown up Company instead of a club. That decision was made in the three years I wandered in the wilderness before I was re-elected to the Board late last year. And that was done by RAAus long before I became a member and, I would guess at the time it became an incorporated association. This is the thing that requires dual reporting to the ACT and ASIC

This ceases to be an issue with the new Constitution.

It is not a matter of differences in obligations or penalties but in the attitude of ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) as RAAus Inc is theoretically subject to both. What is different is the attitude of the "Policeman". You know how the Police are reluctant to get between warring parties in a "domestic" well, the regulator of incorporated associations seems to have a similar attitude to that with incorporated clubs. When we were severely at odds with the then Board in 2012-13 with regard to governance and many other failings, there were a number of approaches to the ACT regulator who basically responded with "sort it out yourselves". Must say that I've changed my view on whether RAAus should remain in Canberra or move out to an airport has changed in favour of staying where we are now. The resources available to the Office in Canberra are so much better that anywhere but another capital city. And in Canberra we have ready access to CASA CEO Skidmore and his deputy Dr. Aleck Combine all that with Canberra resident Mick Monck able to spend a considerable amount of his otherwise very expensive management consulting time at the Office and in meetings with the CASA hierarchy at no cost to RAAus. Perhaps, one day way off in the future, when we've become a mature, stable organisation, we could afford to move to somewhere like Narromine. That really would be the icing on the cake.

I don't know for certain and "soon" may sound a little vague but that is my advice. The CEO was on leave for the month of November and there was not a lot of progress possible in December/January. Kasper. I'm sure you appreciate that this is a monumental undertaking and not a routinely repeated piece of work. It will take as long as it takes to get it as right as we can get it. You will get at least two more goes at it. I don't know if you know but we have the best aviation lawyer in Australia assisting RAAus with the drafting and I would bet 100:1 that nobody on RecFlying would have that lawyer's experience, capability or enjoy the respect that he has in the broader aviation community. And he's not just a desk jockey he's a pilot as well. Will we get it right so that 100% of current members agree with the end result? The odds on that are unbackable but we will seriously consider all commentary offered. We will not put it to a vote before the CEO and the Board are satisfied it is as good as it can be having considered the comments from the few enthusiasts who will take the trouble to write their thoughts down and send them in to the CEO. The feedback we got at the AGM last October was quite favourable. That sounds most unlike our current CEO who has been exceptional in keeping on top of the voluminous correspondence that comes his way every day and I mean 365 days p.a. He was on holidays during the month of November and the acting CEO Katie Jenkins would have attended to anything that came in then. Kasper, I would be pleased to take it up with the CEO if you wanted to forward your emails to me. We actually do value the comments from serious members like yourself. Don

Ian's suggestion makes the most sense. Personally, I think everybody should post in your real name. Makes people more responsible for what they write. People here though have mostly demonstrated good fellowship and a mature attitude

A quick call to Darren Barnfield our Tech Manager would give you an idea. As the Remos is ex USA it should not require very much at all. I think they were/are one of the most popular LSA in the USA. If you like the Remos you might like the Legend that is all ready to go in Australia: http://www.ultralight-aircraft.org/lsa-type-certificate-for-australia/lsa-type-certificate-for-australia-page1.jpg

Scott, As all your other radio calls were so good - I am envious - I was surprised that you might have made an error in the inbound call. I was thinking a straight track from Evans Head to Gatton via Kyogle would have put you SE - clearly an incorrect assumption. Yes, that is me behind the dark glasses sitting in my Sling. It is a pity we couldn't have had a chat at Evans Head, I would have liked that very much.

I did time in a polling place at the last NSW State election and the things that surprised me were: The number of voters who drew a cock and balls on their ballot paper; The number of voters who declined a how to vote leaflet saying "We are just here to get our names ticked off; and, The number of voters who had no idea about pretty well anything and cast a vote confidently. Ah, you have to love democracy. What I learned by running for an elected office (not parliament) was that it takes some guts to have a go. Kind of embarrassing if you get rejected. As such, I admire anyone who puts their hand up to exercise their democratic right to the fullest even if I might not have much regard for their position. Col Jones: Particularly if they possess low mental processing ability as has been the hallmark of many but not all independents (Nick X being the notable exception). I don't understand that arithmetic. If the Government needs the support of the cross benches to get legislation enacted, the independents have massive power. They can ask for much in return for their vote and do and are rewarded. The Government do not have to be "up to no good" for the independents to have this power it just goes back to the numbers. Some fringe dweller gets vastly disproportionate say on what happens compared with the voter support they enjoyed - purely undemocratic. What? The opposition has no role in a Westminster democracy? In a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule not the .05% morons. A government when elected and asked by the Head of State to form a Government should be allowed to govern not be held to ransom by a bunch of fringe dwelling morons like some elected by Qld and WA last time. Queensland has it right with a single house and mostly, whoever wins the election gets to govern. The Opposition has a role of asking questions and holding the government to account but are not elected to prevent the government from governing. For all that, at the National level, a genuine House of Review should be allowed to refuse any legislation but, as it is now, only thrice after which the Government of the day can accept the refusal or take the Senat to the polls in a double dissolution - something that should be done more often to keep the Senate aware that if they are frivolous, they will be held to account by the House of the People. Only because a flaw was exploited in the flawed Senate voting and preference system. Could not agree more and an excellent example of why the oldest Parliament house (NSW LC) in Australia should be abolished - forthwith. OME: Another example of how out-of-date our Commonwealth Constitution is. We have State of Origin Rugby League and Sheffield Shield Cricket to settle inter-state rivalries we do not need a Senate elected on that basis. I would reform the Senate so that it was democratically elected and that nobody could stand for the Senate unless they had not been a member of a political party of any persuasion for at least 10 years. Andy: In a typical polling station there is usually only one person who does vote below the line and, strangely enough they get it right but it takes nearly as long to check as it does to vote it. Clearly we need Optional Preference voting as is available in NSW. Or, allow anyone to stand but have optional preference voting so I don't have to work out how to put the loonie religious groups last.

I dislike independents having the balance of control as it gives them power totally disproportionate to their democratic mandate. The peanut who was elected to the senate on a fraction of 1 percent of the vote and from what I could see knew nothing about everything and was open to being guided by "independents" like Palmer. Those situations do make the Senate into the "Unrepresentative Swill" that Paul Keating ascribed to them. Crazy part is that the ALP/Greens coalition and the Libs/Nats coalition could by simple agreement between them chose to ignore the votes of the minor parties by a process similar to the "pairing" arrangement that happens when an MP must be away from parliament and the other side has one of their own stand aside. It could be done by a handshake and that would be the end of independents forever. I'm a big fan of Nick Xenophon but even he should only have power equivalent to his mandate rather than an accident of numbers.

Great video Scott and your sound recording works very well. I was curious about your inbound call "10nm South-West"and wondering if you would actually have been SE. Not being picky as your radio calls are exemplary - just curious. We were having a discussion on this on another thread here recently.

I am a huge fan of Dick Smith. He is a great entrepreneur and philanthropist. Trying to shove him into a Conservative or Communist box is just mindless. I see him as a progressive, small "L" liberal who is committed to logic and science as the way forward. He is outspoken and attracts a lot of criticism but he says what he thinks and backs it up with action. Imagine a government run by Dick Smith? There be pollies dropping in their tracks not able to keep up with the pace. Disagree with his conclusions by all means but save the questioning of his motives for some other forum. He could be fully retired living on his own island in the Whitsundays not giving a toss about the rest of Australia but instead, despite being in his 70s he clearly does care and at every opportunity he makes his views known with the aim of persuading more people to think. Is he right about not being able to sustain a geometric progression of economic and population growth? Of course he is - that's just simple mathematics. Is anyone prepared to deny the maths? No! Instead they just ignore it and both sides of politics in Australia and all around the world are obsessed with achieving unsustainable perpetual growth. Insanity writ large.

Nev, not sure if your question was meant to be rhetorical, ironic or even sarcastic but, in my time I can recall the booms and busts of the early 1970s (Poseiden), the boom of the early 1980s and the bust of the late 1980s and, of course the recent boom now busted. Whenever I hear people talking about "Minerals Boom" I immediately think "I wonder when the bust will be?". In early 2000s Coal was selling ex Newcastle for around USD20 per tonne. In the peak of the last boom it reached prices over $120 per tonne. Hardly a sustainable price level but everyone who could get a tonne of coal out of the ground did so. And, eventually as happens in every boom, supply expanded enough to exceed demand and prices crashed. No surprises there. Most Australian coal exports do not go to China which has enormous reserves of its own even if it lacks the infrastructure to get it to where it is needed. China's economy is still growing at twice the rate of most other economies around the world and this talk of a China slowdown is simply nonsense. It may not be growing at as big a percentage number as it did but, in absolute terms it is getting bigger every year by an amount bigger than the previous year.

As far as I know, they don't have that skill but they can and do read posts on RecFlying and PPRuNe.

That sounds a bit cynical FT? Not like the FT of old who always looked on the bright side :-) In fact, a well intended but flawed decision was taken in 2012 and reversed in 2015. I am acutely aware as I voted in 2012 for the restriction and for the removal of the restriction in 2015. Older and a tiny bit wiser perhaps?

Kasper, Do you know Board Member Trevor Bange (CFI / L3 at Clifton) Qld? I think you would lose a great deal of your unease with the process if you gave him a ring. I know he is happy to speak frankly on the process and he has been heavily involved in the redevelopment of the Tech Manual. He can set up a Skype call so it will be minimum cost to talk to him. One breakthrough with CASA has been the co-operative process for checking and amending the draft - something that was prescribed by the DAS Skidmore. There is an approach that involves working together to get a top quality Tech Manual approved not working against each other as has often been the approach in the past.

That is a very disappointing and regrettable situation. If you want to email some details to me I will ensure that the issues are attended to. The V 7.0 was only about 4 years late when it came out and, under the guidance of the new CEO, it was pushed through. V7.1 was intended to pick up any issues found in 7.0 - not a hugely desirable process but one that was inflicted on us due to years of inaction by previous management and by that I mean previous CEOs. There will be versions 7.2 and 7.3 in time and the Ops Manual will not be allowed to get out-of-date as happened previously. The new Tech Manual is virtually a blank sheet re-write and has been a monumental undertaking. While I came to it very late, I am satisfied that the process has been very robust and has involved a sound level of consultation. While not all 9,000+ pilots/maintainers have been consulted there has been a process that has produced a draft that is now very close to being passed by CASA. Again, there will be follow-up versions of the Tech Manual keeping it up-to-date and in a good state of repair.

I value the hard won hours and qualifications noted in my log and consequently I have a "belts and braces" back up system to ensure it is never lost. I checked my hours on file at RAAus via the members portal and was (surprised and) delighted to find that that they agree exactly with my records. My records are based on my hardcopy, bound logbook and an excel spreadsheet reconciled with my logbook. The spreadsheet makes it easy for me to identify hours on different types and in different periods. I agree and so would CASA and it is a core function of RAAus. Members have an interest in ensuring RAAus records are correct and now have the opportunity to easily check and request fixes to their records. In the end, the ultimate record is your pilot logbook. Does CASA record your flying hours each year both RAAus and GA? Agreed - a very cheap and easy form of very reliable backup. A safe place is not your own house if that's where you keep your logbook. Better to keep the backup "off site". If you keep the backup in your aircraft then you can keep your logbook at home. As per CASA, you do not have to carry your logbook on a flight you just have to produce it within a reasonable time on request. I carry a photocopy of the last few pages with me that show BFR done and recent hours on type. "Requirement to hold a log book A pilot must keep a personal log book [Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 5.51] A log book consists of a number of pages permanently bound together in such a way that pages may not be replaced or removed; An electronic record is not acceptable as a log book, however, a computer printout bound together in the form of a log book and maintained up to date is acceptable; [*]All manual entries to the log book must be made in permanent ink; [*]This log book is to be produced to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) when requested; [*]Falsification of a log book is a criminal offence; [*]There is no regulatory requirement to carry a personal log book on a flight."

Considering everyone here's view of RAAus's record keeping capabilities wouldn't that be an unsatisfactory fall back position? I keep my logbook in a fire rated safe. I also have full logbook details recorded in an excel spreadsheet and saved to a backup hard disk and the Cloud. Your CFI will have records of any training you have done with him/her. RAAus should have accurate records. No ifs, buts or maybes. RAAus is working to have records accurate and providing all records available to the respective member so they can check for themselves. However, records will not fix themselves - it requires you to take an interest on what data RAAus is holding and ask for it to be corrected if you think it is inaccurate.

Have you let RAAus know about this situation? There is a team in place to sort out exactly that sort of issue and they want to hear about all issues.

Regardless of the age of the student, the Instructor is, of course, the PIC. Instructors are trained to be able to correct any errors made by their students. This is a dead issue now.

There is no denying that RAAus went through a very bleak period from 2012 when CASA audits turned up some very poor administration requiring a 100% review of its aircraft registration records. Many members suffered with aircraft stuck on the ground in some cases, for many, many months. Many members had to jump through many hoops sometimes more than once. The hangover from the GFC certainly didn't help. There is no doubt that some members who may have been getting towards the end of their love affair with flying simply moved on. Currently, the best source of data is the last Annual Report. Data was still not rock solid but just the best available. The fix of RAAus records and the big rewrite of RAAus systems has meant that reports in future will be much more reliable. I doubt that looking back is going to shed much useful intelligence that isn't already obvious and that we don't already know. However, after a massive effort by the RAAus staff through 2014 and 2015, RAAus us in the best shape it has ever been in and still improving rapidly. We know what needs to be done to get RAAus as good as it can be and Michael Linke and his team are pushing ahead at full steam.

The restriction was introduced in 2012. It had been provoked because it was known that kids as young as 9 and possibly younger were being taught to fly. There were real concerns that if an 8yo was killed in a flying training accident, the press and then the politicians would go nuts. The thinking was that since you couldn't go solo until age 15, starting at 14 would still allow ample time to reach solo standard. The Board vote was very close with the motion passing by only one vote. At least one Board Member abstained as he was teaching his very young sons to fly. The restriction was removed by the current Board as it was seen to be out of step with ICAO.