DonRamsay

I study Google Earth for any airfield I plan to fly into. Helps to spot the runway from a long way out - something that often causes me grief. It also helps in getting a feel for the topography and any distinguishing landmarks like biggish dams or major roads. While I rely on an EFB for ERSA, I take along a hard copy of the pages from ERSA for each airport along my intended route plus a few alternates. I enjoy the planning almost as much as the flight but even still, a few years back I managed to fly into an airport doing a LH circuit when ERSA dictated RH circuit. Fortunately, there were no other aircraft in the vicinity but when I realised what I'd done I could hardly believe it. Certainly something I take extra care with never to repeat. On the CTAF issue, my radio (GTR200) displays the airport name (code) for the freq selected. Even still, I managed to give a brief overflying call on the Area Freq. no real harm done and corrected. Point is technology helps but doesn't make it foolproof.

Hit a tree stump that took the wing off.

Good to meet you Gareth and have a chat.

Weather's looking good from this end. Not sure about how good Sunday afternoon will be (Wx) so I'll head back home Sunday morning.

Anyone going to Evans Head this coming weekend 9 & 10 Jan for the Great Eastern Fly-in? I've got the Sling gassed up and ready to go - just need the East Coast Low to go away and we'll be on the way. I've been meaning to go for years but something always got in the way - usually weather.

Firstly, the following comment is a personal view and not necessarily the view of the RAAus Board. My thoughts: I can not disagree more with this suspicion. I refer to it as a suspicion because to call it a superstion might be seen to be harsh. But, my mind tells me that this feeling that the removal of unreasonable restrictions on our flying, eg low MTOW and no access to CTA, will somehow damage those who want to fly rag and tube. I cannot see any logical connection. Flying an aircraft capable of operating at, say, 730 kg in CTA would not be *compulsory*. You do it if you want to and if you've done the training and your aircraft is suitably equipped. The question of medical is an important one. RAAus and AOPA should be campaigning to have the Claytons DL medical otherwise known as the RAMPC recast so that it is a genuine DL medical. The movement in the USA is to make medicals cheaper and less restrictive and CASA's RAMPC imposed by the hostile leadership of the previous DAS is way out of step with that trend and anything that can rationally be justified. A higher MTOW and access to CTA are NOT privileges we are chasing. We want the removal of unreasonable restrictions imposed on our flying safety. Simple as that. CASA agrees in principle with this approach and are committed to working with us to get it done. You may recall that the RAAus CEO who first put the case for 760kg to CASA was Lee Ungermann. While McCormck, when DAS, made it very clear that no favours were to be done for RAAus, the current DAS has no such prejudice and, in my estimation, is a genuine aviation enthusiast and that bodes well for an association of aviation enthusiasts such as RAAus.

Dangerous activity? Risk management principles say that the Risk or degree of danger can be calculated as Probability (100% = certain) x Consequence (Life/$$$). Unfortunately, the Consequence factor in aviation is so often serious injury and high expense or fatal. Probability is the one thing we can work on with success but can never eliminate. The following picture reminds us of the consequences available to pilots not having a good day. And you can add to this bad luck, misfortune or whatever you want to label it. If I didn't think I could get the Risk down to a tolerable level, I wouldn't fly. Motorcycling on a big road bike is similar in concept but the calculation, in my view, favours aviation in a light aircraft over a high powered road bike. Each to their own.

RIP Ross. I feel, like the many, many people who knew him. He was a very easy person to like. Great capability and always willing to share his vast experience. He was a thinker and knew the way to knowledge was to ask and listen and he practiced that as a two-way street. Natfly, Rathmines, Board Meetings, AGMs and all the "virtual" contacts with Ross were always such a pleasure. Never dull. He would walk in with a big smile and brighten up any room just by being there. I will miss his so personable wit and wisdom, forever. I'm devastated and I can't imagine how his family will cope. My most sincere condolences to those closest to him.

100 LL AvGas is a euphemism. It actually contains 0.56 grams/litre of TEL. 100/130 contains twice as much TEL per litre and11/145 a massive 1.29 grams/litre. So the LL refers to low compared with other AvGas not low compared with the old Super mogas which had 0.15 grams/litre of Tetraethyl Lead. And to think we used to siphon that stuff by sucking on the end of a hose! Combine that with our youthful drinking patterns and it's a wonder we have any brain cells left at all.

You can supplement your Public Liability cover as part of your hull insurance policy - not expensive to top it up.

Having a silly medical for PPL does not justify having a silly medical for recreational aviation.

This is not the choice of RAAus. For fatal accidents, the Police are the investigators and provide a report for the Coroner. RAAus assists the Police at the request of the Police. The ATSB considers themselves budget constrained and that is the reason they don't investigate most RAAus accidents. Where there is high publicity and there is a chance of the serious public injury e.g. Old Bar Ferris Wheel, they do investigate and report. RAAus would welcome ATSB involvement and the ATSB do provide technical assistance even if they don't lead the investigation.

Sorry to be so late to the party but I couldn't let this one go by especially as this is such a widely held sentiment. I hope I can destroy this notion once and for all but I realise how unlikely that is. But allow me to try and feel free to tell me where my thinking is askew. The overwhelming concept that needs to be grasped here is that in a free society like ours, you are free to do anything you like. Any restrictions on those freedoms need to be justified. We have remarkably free speech but it is not without reasonable restrictions. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire and you can't defame a person without repercussions. So, with regard to access to CTA and heavier MTOW, we are looking for the elimination of an unjustifiable restriction on our freedoms - not the granting of a "privilege". That being the case, the onus is on the party wishing to apply the restriction to justify the need for the restriction on public benefit basis considering risk management principles. Yes, with an RPL, you can do two endorsements and have access to CTA and towered airports. But, according to CASA, the RPL and the RPC are equivalent. The RPL (in theory at least) is not superior to the RPC. So, the restrictions that apply to RPC should be no more than those that apply to the RPL and the restrictions on both should be justified on a risk analysis basis not ancient history. The first obvious risk that has to be avoided is lack of capability addressed by ensuring that you are trained, tested and proved to be able to do the task competently. In concert with having the skill is that is that your aircraft is suitably equipped to operate in CTA without causing undue risk to paying air travellers. Similarly there are other risks that need to be managed including health standard. Pilots around the world have been operating in CTA with drivers licence medical standards for more than 10 years and the experience has not seen a heap of Boeings and Airbuses being knocked out of the sky by Trikes. Australia is just about unique in the world in not allowing recreational aircraft into CTA. RAAus has already trained more than 700 LSA/Ultralight pilots at places like Camden and Coffs Harbour and more than 10 other airports without safety issues. Yet when the trainee pilots go from solo student to pilot certificated they must never again enter the airport they learned to fly at. Nuts!!! 600 kg MTOW? The only thing that an overly restrictive MTOW attacks is airframe robustness and fuel carrying capacity. And that is also NUTS!!! By all means manage/reduce risk by restricting to pilot plus one pax but why restrict the strength of the aircraft they fly in? A 700kg two seat aircraft has the potential to be much stronger than a 600 kg (or 450 kg) aircraft and carry enough fuel to get there and back with good reserves. Surely that is a safer for everyone in the aircraft or on the ground. OK so, lets assume for the moment that we get the restrictions changed to, say, 760 kg and CTA. How is that going to affect the person who is happy flying his rag and tube aircraft in the back paddock? The simple answer is "not in any way". He/She is not going to be forced to buy a 750 kg LSA nor fly into CTA. However, if they want to do either or both and are prepared to do the training and fly an appropriately equipped aircraft and have passed the endorsement why on earth would you want them restricted from doing that? Would people prefer that we went back to single seat aircraft flying below 300ft and not crossing public roads? The only thing that should determine what you are not restricted from doing with an airplane is what you have been trained successfully to do. Personally, I'd have one non-commercial aviation licence, call it what you like. In addition to the generic right to fly an aircraft within 25 NM of the airport you took off from you would have a range of options - endorsements for aircraft type (FW/WS/RW and NW/TW etc), where you can fly (XC/CTA/IFR/ ALT), how you can fly it (aeros, LL, etc). This is a change from the ancient past where our aviation licensing comes from and, if you ask me, not before time!

The 10 principles are a breakthrough in my view. I think they are right and Mr Skidmore has set them for every action taken by CASA to be judged. I can think of actions in the past that to my way of thinking fail at least 5 of these principles. No doubt others can do that as well. However, any action if future on Mr Skidmore's watch, that fails even one of the Principles can be brought to the attention of Mr Skidmore quoting the Principle failed and the reasons why you think the action failed the stated principle. We have seen some of the worst of the old guard at CASA move on and we may see more in the future especially if they are unwilling to go with the new flow laid down by Skidmore.

You really should be disappointed and annoyed if you don't get 100% in a Pilot Cert exam. Think of it like a Doctor - you really want him to get your diagnosis and treatment correct 100% of the time not 4 times out of 5 (80%). The written exams are limited in how good a test they are but we don't really have a substitute for them unless you'd prefer an oral exam like they do for ship's officers.

Thanks Rhys, Woolworths is a bit of a stretch I agree but I don't think directors are on big bonus incentives. They of course do get handsome fees but their big incentive is to keep on earning those fees and pick up other directorships and, the big one, staying out of gaol. The Corporations Law puts some very serious requirements on directors in terms of due diligence, conflicts of interest and fiduciary duty.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Skidmore in Canberra recently and found him to be very credible in his determination to reform CASA and win the trust and confidence of the Industry. He has a very large and incredibly complex set of issues in front of him but he gave me the feeling that if anyone can do it, he can. Will it happen overnight? No. Will it happen ever to everyone's satisfaction. No. Is it worth doing? Has he made a good start? I believe he has, virtually from day 1. Will there be resistance to a change in style for CASA? Of course there will. Would I like to be one of the people resisting change? Definitely not. I doubt there will be redress of some of the things in the past that some people would like to see but I think our future is looking a hell of a lot brighter than it was under his predecessor. On the basis of his progress to date, I'm more than prepared to give him a couple of years to make a dent in the Herculean task in front of him.

Right about now you will be able to log on to the NEW RAAus website and re-register your aircraft as easily as it is to renew your care rego. This is just the tip of all the good things going on in the background that will not be apparent to members until they are implemented and debugged. It is all good stuff even if it is 5 to 10 years late. Being late is not the fault of the current management who have turned themselves inside out to get a massive amount of work done in the last 12 months under the aspirational leadership of Michael Linke. If you follow the newsletters you will get all the info you need as to how and when you'll be able to manage your own records on the RAAus database. This is an info revolution happening before your eyes. It was a long time getting underway with some previous CEOs back in the dinosaur days of info technology and having no interest in such progress. It also has not come for free but the money has been well spent and on the right things. The expenditure was tightly controlled through good project management. When you think of the grief the Staff have been through between 2010 and 2014 with nothing to show for their hard work except abuse from some members and now they are in the position of being able to unveil the new systems that will make working with (and for) RAAus a totally different proposition.

As I mentioned to KP above, the ideal is a good mix of skills and experience. I think you would find on the Boards of some very big corporations, e.g. Woolworths, people who have no experience in low margin retailing - either from a management point of view or as a shopper. Doesn't stop them from wanting the best performance for the business. "Best performance" has to be defined and enshrined in our reason for being (Company's Objects). Our current CEO has a Board-approved Strategic Plan and an Operational Plan (Budget) to guide him and KPIs to measure up against. He will also have, in time, Board sub-committees keeping an eye on Risk Management including Audit. All part of professional management practice. The consultation draft is written broadly as an enabling document. If you look at most Articles and memoranda of public companies they are written very broadly so as not to restrict a company's future direction. Our Constitution requires a 75% majority to pass an amendment (by Special Resolution). This is a time-consuming and can be an expensive process. Best approach is to keep the scope broad. For example, it is in my view unlikely we'll be regulating spacecraft any time soon - but who would have predicted the sort of aircraft flying under the RAAus banner when the AUF was first kicked off. And if we'd stuck with only 95:10 aircraft how big/strong would the AUF (RAAus) be now? President Mick Monck touches on the reasons for the change of form of incorporation in the explanatory memo that comes with the Consultation Draft. Well worth a member reading that even if they never get around to reading the new Constitution. The membership now gets the opportunity every 12 months to "push the button" if they are not happy. They also get the opportunity twice each year to front up to a General Meeting and press their questions. A few of us did that to, I think, good effect over the last three years.

Keith, I think we need some biodiversity on the "professional" Board. Not just all CFIs or L2/L3/L4 or professional business people without an aviation connection. We currently have some Board Members who qualify on both counts. Some are long time pilots as well as being aircraft owners and enthusiasts AND experienced, educated businessmen. Our President Mick Monck is a prime example. RAAus's first port of call on legal matters these days is a long term aviator and a damn good lawyer. These people do exist.

Those who watched the live net cast of the AGM and subsequent Q&A must have been impressed with the presentation of the Constitution as there were few questions from those present and those online and there were some remarkable, complimentary comments from all sorts of sources including Rod Stiff, Myles Breitkreutz, Keith Page and more. Those who still wish to make constructive comments that can improve the document owe it to the rest of their fellow members to write to Michael Linke and pass on your considered view for enhancements. Airing them on a forum may make you feel good but will not achieve much - if anything. RAAus in its history has had growth spurts and has had periods when membership numbers have declined a little as in the troublesome period we have just come out of. We have had periods when the organisation has gone ahead and we've had times when it went backwards. The next big step we make is towards a more professional Board with strict duties under the uniform Corporations Law that treat severely failure by Directors to perform their role with due diligence and in good faith and in recognition of their fiduciary duty to the corporation and thereby its members It is not good enough anymore to have just aviation enthusiasts on the Board. We need people who understand their role as corporate strategists and as authors of corporate policy to guide management in the execution of the strategic direction dictated by the Board. Compare the capabilities of a board like that with situation that I think the amateurish performance of recent years got us into. Failure to have a very competent management team in place that could effectively manage office systems left us with the severe impact of large parts of our fleet grounded for extended periods. In my view it made us look like cowboys to the Regulator and made life very difficult for most members. Due to the monumental efforts of a dozen or so dedicated members who got off their butts and invested a lot of time, effort and their own money, we have come out of that situation and are now in the process of developing a mature relationship with the Regulator. We have a CEO in place who has completely renovated RAAus systems and has the staff with the highest level of morale I have ever witnessed at RAAus. By the end of this calendar year you will see the benefits of the renovations as they are progressively revealed. Trouble is, with the voting system that has been in place in the past where the right Post Code and a handful of mates (or get elected unopposed as often happened) was all you needed to get a spot on the Board. You wouldn't want your Superfund investments run that way and that is where we will head back to eventually if we don't raise the standard of the business skills on the Board. It is a fully democratic system still. Any time Members are not happy with the Board they can petition to change the Company's rules as I did on some 25 different occasions or they can collect signatures of like minded people and bring the Board to task before a General Meeting as the group I was associated with did. This is not Rocket Surgery but it is Management Science.We have a CEO who has an MBA and a President who is an experienced management consultant to medium/large enterprises. We have a Safety Manager who is just about to be awarded an MBA and will stand in for the CEO when he is on leave. We have a graduate engineer with CASA delegations as Tech Manager and an articulate and industrious Ops Manager. We need a Board that is capable of working at the top level and the new Constitution will, in my opinion, give us that.

Kasper, I'm en route to Bundaberg at the moment so my response may be brief and suffer from poor tablet typing skill and dopey Apple editor. These are strong views and I wonder if you have communicated them to the appropriate person - Michael Linke. If you haven't then nobody is going to do anything in response to your considered opinion that you have taken the time to form from your research and reading. I would urge all to view the webcast of the members forum at Bundaberg. I was not one of the team that put the draft together but I have the greatest of respect for the people who did it. Their qualifications, skill, experience and hard work could not have been bettered, in my view. This is a significant change for RAAus. They are not setting out to reproduce the same clubby organisation that may have served us well in the 1980s when we were smaller but has not been successful in the 21st century as the largest aviation body in Australia. The aim is to put RAAus on a proper professional footing. If you had shares in BHP, you would want the people on the Board to be skilled professionals operating within strict governance rules and with an eye on corporate strategy not watching the road running under their feet and doing the job of the employed management. Yes, the Board will have discretion as do other professional Boards but they will still need to be guided by the total membership or be voted off the Board. Poorly performing Board Members will be removed from the Board and replaced by people prepared to acquit their responsibilities. We established a precedent in 2013 when the ordinary members campaigned and won an extraordinary General Meeting and put the Board on notice to do their job or get off the Board. The result was we now have the best Board in living memory.that is the democratic process working well. Electing a mob to the Board with a Post Code as the sole qualification has not worked well for us. There have been times when the Board out numbered the employees. We are still close to that at the moment. That is not efficient and it has been less than effective in the past.

Keith, the responsibility for Board Members to act for the benefit of ALL members and not to favour any individual or group of individuals is in the current Constitution, in the Act and a foundation of Australian Corporations Law. Directors must act in the best interests of the whole corporation. If you can name one single instanc where any Board Member ever acted otherwise I will owe you a Schooner (beer not boat!)

Just a correction on who you should send your comments and questions to. It should be to Michael Linke, the CEO not the President. The CEO's email address is in the front of the SportPilot magazine.

Thanks Rhys, I'm sure it will be helpful on the journey to a resolution. I'm coming back to this project fairly late in its evolution and am in catch-up mode the same as everybody else. Clearly, I will have the benefit of attending the Board Meeting and AGM and briefing and discussion session and should be in a better position to discuss this in mid October. In the meantime I'd better get back to building my own understanding of our proposal. Nobody is suggesting that this is a simple, easy to fix matter but I think everybody agrees that there is something to fix and that it can be fixed. There is an intelligent, hard working and dedicated group of people who are seeking to do the best they can for our Association. Please be wary of assigning conspiracy motives (That comment is not addressed to you Rhys). We have a group of people on here for whose views I have high regard. Please seriously consider my request that you communicate your views directly to the Board Chair (Mick Monck). I am just one of 13 at the moment. And a reminder that Board Members (Directors) are bound by Corporations Law to do the best that they can for all members of the Association and not just those who voted for them. I may have received 75% of those who voted in the NSW/ACT by-election but that is a tiny fraction of the total membership of RAAus for whom I am now obliged to do my best. My commitment is to all members of RAAus.