DonRamsay

Nev, the trend as I see it is regulation for the recreational end of GA (not for reward) will *reduce* overtime based on the success of LSA in the USA. Medicals are already being moved in the right direction in the USA and the UK. I don't see a risk of regulation of RAAus getting more like the current GA unless you want to do something that we are not currently doing - like transit CTA. It is not unreasonable if you want to transit CTA to have a recently calibrated pitot system - annually rather than biannually. But there is no suggestion that all RAAus aircraft would need to change from the current bi-annual calibration for flying in Class G below 10,000 ft. Don

What "Ga add on costs" did you have in mind Bull? I certainly can't think of any.

Frank, I can't agree with any of that but I'm sure that won't surprise you. But rather than swap opinions, let's have a look at the facts. Firstly, all candidates for the Board positions must first and foremost be pilots. Secondly, when you look at the current Board, it would be on average the Board with the most aviation experience EVER. Try adding up the the aviation experience of Trevor Bange, Mick Monck, Tony King, Eugene Reid and Rod Birrell and you'll come to a very large number. Thirdly, have a look at the Corporate experience/qualifications of Mick Monck, Barry Windle, Michael Linke and Katie Jenkins. There are a few MBAs in there and Chartered Institute of Directors Members. This is the highest set of corporate qualifications RAAus has ever had the benefit of. So, we now have a team with the most aviation and corporate experience RAAus has ever enjoyed. How is that going to kill the organisation? Back in the "good old days" when 10 out of 13 Board Members were CFIs, RAAus all but collapsed under the weight of its own incompetence. And please, there is no ban on any member of RAAus running for the Board. To get elected all they need is to get sufficient votes from the members. Every member of the current Board was elected by a popular vote of the members based on their perceived suitability for the job. Every member had the opportunity to use their democratic right and it is up to us to respect the democratic process. Don

Nev, the NRMA example was intended to say that things change and that what members wanted in 1926 may be different to what the great bulk of the membership wants in the 21st Century. As I've written many times I don't accept the RA Vs GA delineation. I only see recreational aviation and commercial aviation. The size of you aircraft should not matter that much (within reason). GA aircraft flown for fun are recreational aviation just the same as rag and tube flown for recreation. A Trike flown by a commercial pilot for reward (e.g. joy flights) can be regulated by CASA for all I care as I will never fly for reward. As such my sole aviation interest is recreational aviation. The Garmin G3X touchscreen in my aircraft is both reliable and accurate but not TSO'd. BUt, it has been accepted for recreational aviation. Why should a slightly heavier, smaller cockpit, C150 have to have TSO'd equipment if it is being used only for recreational aviation. I reckon my equipment is superior to some of the old crap in Cessnas and Pipers, etc. That recreational aviation is a lower risk to the general public than commercial aviation is a well established fact. It is the basis of the lighter regulation of LSA and that has been proven over more than 10 years to be a great success and not a mistake. Why shouldn't a C172, flown for fun (not reward) be subject to the same style of regulation as other aircraft flown for recreation? The trend across the world is now a reduction in regulation for light aircraft - e.g. medicals for Class III in USA, LSA, RPL, etc. To see easing of restrictions on RA as somehow going to cause harsher regulation is an argument that I cannot accept when the trend is for heavier than LSA to have reducing regulation.

RAAus has been planning for Part 149 longer than I have been involved. At the AGM last weekend, the President said that everything RAAus does including form of incorporation, Constitution, Ops and Tech Manuals, Safety System development have been done so as to satisfy Part 149 from day 1. I would speculate that RAAus is more ready for Part 149 than any other SAAO. My personal bet is that Part 149 does not see daylight before the 20th anniversary of it being first mooted.

Bull, Specifically what costs will be imposed on you if I wanted to train for and sit for an endorsement to fly CTA? Allow me suges that the answer is "sweet fanny adams". The only theoretical expense for RAAus is the work being done by Jill and the Board in obtaining CTA approval for RAAus. The Board are not paid and the Ops Manager is on a salary. You won't be required to do the training nor sit the exam and when I do, I will have to pay for it - "user pays". And I can tell you that Mark Skidmore was quite surprised to find out that we were not allowed to have a CTA endo. If its good enough for sport pilots in NZ, UK and USA - why not in Australia? Don p.s. The NRMA started out doing roadside repairs and morphed into an insurance giant, travel agent and so much more. Nothing in this world stands still without being overgrown with moss.

Yenn, they cannot ignore a Special Resolution. This is the device that allows members to exercise their absolute power over the entire organisation. Please don't give up because, from your perspective, a few human beings effed up. Post your recommendations here and I will give them full consideration. Not saying I'll agree necessarily but I will look very closely at them and into them. Don

Reminds me of a mate trying to get his horse to urinate before he put in the trailer. He used to say "You can lead a horse to drink but you can't make it water." Well, I thought it was funny.

Frank, As you would know and many on here my expertise to the extent i have any is not in the Technical area. For that reason, for me to argue against you, Trevor or Tony would be not helpful. On a good Board there are people with different skills and experience. All a person like me can do is listen to the arguments and decide which makes the most sense to me. I was never in a position to lead such a discussion. If you want to fly in CTA then you must expect to operate with the same standard of instrumentation that GA are currently obliged to have and the same level of currency. In CTA you are more likely to be mixing it with the big boys and the risks are much greater than flying along at 3,500 feet in Class G. But, if you don't want CTA then you can continue with your Class G instrumentation and currency of calibration. Don

Bull, I did not come over from the dark side. I have only ever had a Pilot Cert and flown "Recreational Aircraft" for, recreation! Something of the order of 80% of the RAAus membership fly 3 axis aircraft that you seem to despise so it is hard validate your claim that "a very large percentage of members are disgusted". You are always free to form your own SAAO any time you like and get CASA to approve it. It will need to be compliant with, among many things the proposed Part 149. What I can't understand and have never understood is how my flying a LSA impacts on you flying rag and tube?

Bull, absolutely no need to apologise for saying how you see things. This is the way you honestly see things and you are entitled to that view. However, as I've indicated I see the world through a different lens. I refuse to see what is currently called GA (not for reward) as any different to RA. Both are just people who fly for fun whether they fly a Drifter or a Caravan. I also refuse to consider my pilot cert as a "privilege". I see it as a right that has some unreasonable restrictions arbitrarily placed on it by the Regulator. I see the restriction on the MTOW that I can fly and the CTA areas that I can't fly in as just that unreasonable restrictions and the sooner they are lifted the better. I'd like to take my wife for a scenic around Sydney Harbour and why can't I? Because some petty official sitting Canberra thinks I should not be allowed to train or CTA nor be tested for the skill nor use the skill. What on earth gives them the right to place these restriction on my recreational flying?

Kasper, I can't dispute the logic of your argument on this issue. It was an issue that trroubled the Board when it was brought up in Release 4.0 of the Tech Manual. In the end I was persuaded that, while there is insufficient evidence of it being a problem that needed a solution and that it was more onerous than SAAA, I was prepared to go along with it on the basis that I have always been a bit belts & braces when it comes to process and systems design. Checks and balances is something I exercised all my career for no reason other no human being I've ever met can perform lengthy and complex tasks and never make a mistake. Also, don't the SAAA have a system of supervision and inspections? Finally, since 4.0 still has its training wheels on you are entitled to request it be changed. Asking on RecFlying for it to be changed is not likely to be more effective than asking the CEO for it to be changed.

Let's get specific. If anyone has a set of words that they think should be used to amend the RAAus Ltd Constitution can you post them here please? As I mentioned elsewhere, I am doing a line by line review myself and will form an opinion on what, if anything, I think could be improved. I start with a view that it is not easy to read but then that is not peculiar to this Constitution. The old one wasn't easy until you'd read it >20 times. Others coming from a different experience will see things differently and that is a good thing. As you probably know, I am not a Director just an ordinary member and my review is being undertaken without reference to or support or opposition from the new Board. No point commenting on the form of incorporation, that is a done deal. Please, no general moaning. More like "this is not right and it should read as follows . . . " So, please share your thoughts with us here.

If you smash the canopy wouldn't the cockpit just get pushed into the ground? Only way out would be if the plane can be lifted or righted. Sliding canopy gives you a better chance if not locked on landing or can be unlocked while inverting.

It is not appeasing CASA. The Board has often looked at telling CASA to stick the "Deed of Agreement" and refuse the $100k. While it costs RAAus $1.8 million to do CASA's bidding, if CASA had to do it for themselves, it would cost more like $10 million. However, if we did tell them to stick it they would keep their $100k and demand we do it anyway. Very hard to argue with an authority like CASA that is a law unto itself. The only way I can see this ever being fixed is to go political. Could you ever see an ALP/Greens government agreeing to give "rich aviators/polluters" $2 million? Might be a ghost of a chance with the Nats but nothing will happen without a concerted campaign by 10,000 pilots.

Kasper, It was good to meet you at the AGM and have the opportunity to shake hands and say hello. The reality is that the recreational pilots are moving away from rag and tube as evidenced by the financial collapse of Quicksilver (largest manufacturer of rag & tube). Anyhow, I like to think that everyone who is not flying commercially (for reward) flies for recreation. I have enormous regard for people like the late Scott Winton who set world altitude records in the tiniest aircraft of his own design and build. My personal preference though, considering my skill level and tolerance for risk (low), is to fly something a built more robust and conventional. To me there is no such thing as GA just people who fly for fun and people who fly for reward. CASA can have the latter and the rest should group together to protect and enhance our rights. The whole GA versus RA thing to me is an anachronism and should be left in the past. You might be but what about the Rec Pilots who live in Canberra or Coffs Harbour or Tamworth and many other cities whose local airport is CTA? As soon as they are qualified they have to go somewhere else often a great distance from their nearest airport. And I, personally would love to be able to fly up the coast past Williamtown and Coffs and the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. Not my understanding. RAAus is represented on all the RAPAC committees and persistently questions ever expanding CTA, especially military. Also, representations are made at the political level in Canberra about the extent of CTA and RAAus being excluded when not excluded in other equivalent countries including NZ. And CTA will never be forced on any RAAus pilot the same as it is not forced on RPLs. It will be there if you want to train for the endorsement and pass the tests. RAAus firm policy is to never have harsher regulations than the current GA regs. Another policy is to have a risk based approach to regulation. If there is no safety case then no regulation. However, no safety case does not mean "no deaths attributable". In my experience, anyone who thinks they can design and build anything with nobody else ever looking over their shoulder at any stage is courting failure and in aviation terms that usually implies "crash and burn". Yes, that may be a step away from the laissez-faire approach of the early rag and tube days but I can not bring myself to prefer the "good old days" to a more considered approach. My personal view. RAAus is now producing RAAPs - advisory pamphlets rather than going into print with more regulation. I would like to see much regulation moved to advisory status and enforceable regulation lifted to a much higher level like "It is the responsibility of the pilot to conduct a safe flight" much as is the case with where you can land an aircraft. Part 149 has been coming for nearly 20 years and still no sign of it happening with in the next 12 months. However, it has the potential to make regulation simpler and easier to know. Eliminate the exceptions and give us a firm basis for recreational aviation. Somehow, I think I might have hung up my spurs before Part 149 hits the deck.

$27.50 p.a.? That cannot be directly compared with the RAAus annual fee. The insurance you get from RAAus costs more than that and to me is good value. Personally I pay for extra cover on top of the RAAus cover. I could never recommend pilots flying without Liability cover. So, what do you get for $27.50? RAAus does a lot of work for CASA. That work costs RAAus members about $1.8 million p.a. and CASA recompenses about $107,000 (edited - Mod)

After my near death experience with man flu, I am finally back on deck and will now attempt to clear up the misunderstandings surrounded the refusal of the Company to consider at the 2016 AGM the resolutions proposed by Kirk. Firstly, as a long time agitator for the Board of RAAus to abide by the Constitution, I would the last person to defend any Board that did not abide strictly to the terms of the Constitution. In this instance, I consider that the Board has acted properly and in accordance with the precise terms of the Constitution in refusing to consider the resolutions proposed by Kirk at the 2016 AGM and refusing to send out his Member's Statement. I also contend that the current Constitution is a workable document and is quite clear on how elections and general meetings are to be conducted and the process for the putting and voting on resolutions including special resolutions. Having said that, it could be worded better to make it easier for members to see why Kirk's proposals should not and cannot be considered at the 2016 AGM. Clause 21 requires: a minimum of 21 days notice of a general meeting (including an AGM) - Cl 21.2. the notice to go to ALL members (my emphasis) - Cl 21.1(a) notice to include any resolution to be considered at the General Meeting (including AGM) (my emphasis) - Cl 21.3© It is critical to the fundamentals of a democratic organisation to accept that If a proposed resolution is not on the formal Notice it should not and cannot be considered by the general meeting. Clause 27.3 sets 7 days as the minimum period that a request for the distribution of a Member's statement must reach the Company. However, if a Member's statement relates to resolutions that were not included in the Notice of Meeting then it would be false, misleading, confusing and pointless to send out such a Member's statement as it relates to resolutions that are not on the agenda. Clause 27.5 states: "If the Company has been given notice of a Members resolution under Clause 27.1(a), the resolution must be considered at the general meeting for which the resolution was called" (my emphasis) Since Kasper's resolutions were not provided in time for them to be included in the formal Notice of Meeting, they do not meet the test of Clause 27.5 in that they were not proposed for consideration at the 2016 AGM. Kirk's proposed resolutions were received by the Company long after the Notice had been sent to Members. In the olden days when I was proposing many motions for Special Resolutions to amend the Constitution of RAAus Inc., I was always mindful of the need to get the motions to the Company Secretary in time for them to be included in the Notice for the meeting at which I wished to have the motions considered. Despite facing a Board largely hostile to what I was proposing, I never had any issue with my proposed resolutions being accepted by the Board for inclusion in the formal Notice of the general meeting. You can't just cherry pick a word here and there from the Constitution you must read it as a comprehensive document. Don

As Directors, they will all have the same responsibilities even if individual directors choose to specialise in maintenance or training or . . . . As a director you are responsible to the shareholders and accountable to them and to ASIC.

Interesting. I thought the big disappointment with RAAus, according to KP, was that it was supposed to be a "Members Organisation" and it wasn't living up to that expectation? And yet E&LAAA starts out as a private company run for the benefit of a small number shareholders? No members at all to give input just customers to be serviced as the company sees fit.Pilots who fly under the RAAus banner have the right to direct the company. Pilots who fly with E&LAAA have no power over the company and would have to take any dissatisfaction to the ACCC. No need for pesky elections or general meetings. Very efficient.

Perhaps that should have been looked at as "Let's not let perfect get in the way of very good". This is not to suggest that n near enough is good enough but you should appreciate that reforming the organisation was only one of a number of major projects going on at the time. Things like a new Tech Manual, a revision of the Ops Manual (turned out bigger then expected); negotiate with CASA for an improved Deed of Agreement, a removal of restrictions on RAAus pilots from entering CTA and a relaxing of the restrictions on the MTOW that RAAus pilots can fly. Did RAAus Board and Management bite off more than they could chew. Possibly, but I applaud them for taking on such a massive workload. Never before in the history of AUF/RAAus has so much been done by so few for so many - to coin a phrase. A considerable number of qualified and experienced people looked hard at the proposed Constitution and judged it OK to proceed with knowing that if they missed something it was not going to be catastrophic and could be fine tuned over time. Every one of the RAAus Members who didn't / don't like the wording of the Constitution have had the opportunity to: campaign and vote against it - done and lost. propose special resolutions to the upcoming AGM - no member used that opportunity. complain about the wording on an online forum - done, with the predictable outcome.

Kirk, This post of yours deserves a response from me but, at the moment, I am not well enough to spend time to do that. I hope within a few days to be feeling well enough to give you the considered response your well written post is entitled to receive. 01rmb, Similarly, you raise some valid points that I would like to explore further with you and will as soon as I'm able. Don

My favourite of all the WWII aircraft.

On the contrary Bull, I would much prefer this and most of the rest of regulations that affect Recreational Aviation to be in the form of RAAP (RAAus version of CASA CAAP). I think it is good advice to have somebody check your work when your life and the life of others depends on you getting it right first time. Trial and error are rarely afforded in our pastime. Regulation should be at a high level like "You are required to conduct each flight safely" and have that supported by lots of good advice about how to achieve safe flight. As others have said, the test for regulation is "Does this proposed regulation have a robust risk analysis that shows a regulation is required"?

The AUF was formed to put a body between CASA and ultralight flyers. CASA was reasonably happy with that for many reasons mostly it saved CASA money and they just didn't want to have to think too much about such small scale aviation. RAAus does exactly the same job as the AUF did both for Rec Aviation Pilots and CASA. CASA has no desire to be involved in administering the flying done by Rec Aviation Pilots or, for that matter, the low end of non-commercial GA. BUt, anyone who thinks that CASA has delegated SAFETY regulation to RAAus and that RAAus can make up whatever rules it like is being mislead. In its recent NPRM on the proposed Part 149 that is to govern bodies like RAAus, CASA makes it abundantly clear that bodies under Part 149 are there to ADMINISTER CASA's safety regime. Accusing RAAus of becoming a mini-CASA makes no sense in that environment. The AUF and RAAus have always been a CASA delegate. Yes RAAus can and does have arguments with CASA about regulation but in the end, CASA calls the shots. Anyone who thinks that has not always been the case is missing the point of L, A, W law. RAAus is an advocate for light aircraft pilots and maintainers and does a pretty good job of it as evidenced by the advances since the days of the 300 foot limit. It demands of CASA that they justify any restrictions placed on our flying. On that basis CASA is being pushed to lift restrictions on MTOW and access to CTA. As regards staged inspections I readily concede that it is a step away from the ethos of design, build and fly it yourself. But, I come from a work environment that was totally systems based. All systems include checks at the appropriate point and feedback loops and those steps are in the system for only one reason - quality assurance and improvement. In our case read "quality" as "not killing your self due to an unforeseen design flaw or construction error. Of course, if you are like a very special few who NEVER, EVER make a mistake then you can feel miffed about staged checks on your aircraft build. In the meantime, I'll happily stick with my belts and braces approach.