DonRamsay

Sorry to all that this is off topic but it is a matter vital to the core of RAAus and recreational aviation in the broadest sense. Last time I looked, p = m x v (momentum = mass x velocity) That of course agrees with your 300kg into terrain versus my 600 kg (or 700 kg) except that your terminal velocity is likely to be less due to a higher drag factor. Likely to be terminal in both cases regardless of the number of knots. The risk element, in every case, is comprised of two factors probability and consequence. Other things equal, there is a greater consequence with a heavier object arriving unannounced to the ground at an unfortunate angle. The consequence in this case is much the same for the pilot but can differ depending on what's on the ground and who's on board. The probability is managed by restricting recreational pilots to day VFR, low complexity aircraft (low stall), one passenger, good maintenance and inspection regimes and good pilot training and requiring the pilot to be able to glide clear of built up areas. Passengers of recreational aircraft, regardless of their or the plane's MTOW, fly at their own risk. It could be argued that a Cessna 172 is a less risky means of transport than a Trike. Why restrict recreational aviators to Trikes when they could be safer in a heavier, more robust aircraft? Recreational aviators and their passengers fly at their own risk. Commercial passengers are entitled to a less risky environment and that is the reasonable attitude of the Parliament, aviation regulators and the RPT travelling public. It makes more sense to me to regulate on the base of recreational use versus commercial than on arbitrary number of kilograms. Well, I'm arguing that they should not be arbitrary but logical. Let's not get too far off the beam - nobody is suggesting unlimited stall speed. RAAus is not seeking to fly B747s. It is asking for CASA to live up to its statement that the RPL and RPC are equivalent. They will be equivalent when MTOW is upped to 1,500 kg and CTA and aerobatic endorsements are available to pilots with the appropriate equipment and training. I wouldn't put it past Bert Ruttan to come up with a Long EZ that can handle 100,000 ft? The Wintons's Opal Facet made it to 32,000 ft with 40hp so, 3 time that is only 120 hp and . . . the sky may not be the limit. I doubt you or anyone else believes all that. MTOW is but one of the many limits on the acceptability of an aircraft for recreational use by recreational pilots. John Travolta no doubt flies his B707 recreationally but he doesn't/couldn't do it on a Sport Pilot licence and nobody is suggesting he should be able to.

The weight increase will make the very credible RVs eligible for RAAus and that would not be a bad thing. It would also allow a closer cooperation with even more common aims between RAAus and SAAA. I like the idea that you had to have built it to maintain it but I doubt it would be broadly popular. My Sling is factory built and I have it L2 maintained. If I had the time or skill to build one I would but I don't. My L2 actually makes me do a lot of the grunt work (under supervision) and I am certainly benefiting from that as I get to know my aircraft intimately. There could come a day when I would feel confident to maintain my aircraft but I would, I think, always want it supervised by my L2. That's just risk-averse me.

Rhys, My theory is that the sooner you get your concerns raised with the people drafting the new constitution the easier it is to get changes made. The later you leave it the more reluctant people, naturally, are to make changes. It is in part human nature at work. What we have to keep in mind is that the old Constitution may have served us OK in the early days when we were just a club but it has definitely not served us well over the last 10 years. We need a ground up rethink of what RAAus has become and how it can be structured to be efficient and well governed into the future. The regional representation model has not consistently provided directors with the qualifications, experience and skills to operate well at Board level. I think there is general accord that 13 Board Members is both ineffective and inefficient. I'd also respectfully suggest that when reading the draft to try and get the sense of it overall. I'd actually argue that while there may be devils in the detail the strength is in the overall picture. My recommendation is to initially get a feeling for the overall picture and then have a look to see that the detail does not prevent the principle objective from being achieved. Don

That is all any of us want and it is what RAAus is seeking. Can't agree with that Kasper. The reason we have such a convoluted aviation regulation setup is because it has grown like topsy but at a glacial speed. CASA are pursing harmonisation of Australian regulation with ICAO and we have had the 1988 and 1998 Acts as major stepping stones. When Part 103 is introduced regulation for recreational aviation will be a lot simpler with the removal of exemptions based regulation. But I sometimes wonder if I'll see Part 103 in my lifetime. And if the introduction of Part 61 is something to go by (the last minute deferral for was it 12 months?) . . . Kasper, I think that question, in its current form, is aggressive and lacks respect and should be withdrawn. It is not up to Andy to say whether CTA is granted to 2 strokes or 4 strokes or Jabiru or Rotax or only Lyco/Conti. What Andy and others are seeking in fact is the repeal of a "Safety" rule that restricts access to a safe route. The current rules can be seen to work against the safety of RAAus pilots and their passengers. Surely that is a good thing to seek? They are seeking the lifting of an unreasonable restriction not the granting of a special privilege to a few. Don

Rhys, You would be doing the Board and the Members a huge favour by sending in your questions and preferences addressed to President Mick Monck. That's what consultation is all about. The benefit is that all members will get access to your questions, comments and the official answers. I'm just one member of, at the moment a 13 person Board.

Kasper, I acknowledge your restraint in your reply. It is to your credit when you feel strongly but can write logically and with regard to the others point of view. On this we must disagree. The people who designed my aircraft set out to build one with real reserve strength which can only come from super exotic composites or more metal. In this case, it was more metal. It was designed to be strong and the result ended up having good performance and fitted under the Euro 750 kg rules which are very similar to LSA. My aircraft has a "natural" designed strength that comes with an empty weight penalty. I compare it to my Tecnam Sierra LSA and while that is a lovely aeroplane, you can see where the extra 50kg of aluminium, rivets, and AN hardware went into the Sling. That natural strength is then penalised by the bureaucrat decided LSA rules forcing a reduced payload in fuel and range and therefore utility. In my book strength = good and stronger = better. Even if we were entitled to go to 1,500 kg it would have no interest to me because of the fuel and performance penalty with no advantage in speed or range or payload. However, if somebody else wanted to do that it would be no skin off my nose. The only reason it has to be registered below its "fighting weight" is because a bureaucrat has written a rule that was meant to allow for simpler flying - no retracts, day VFR, one pax, etc. Restricting design strength makes no sense and should not have been included in the registration rule in the first place. In the USA they even have a ridiculous cruising speed limit which can make no sense to anyone. The only time speed matters is if you are going too slow or touching down. Silly rules are not a positive contribution to safe flying. We probably start from a different point. I begin with flying is a right not a privilege. It is kind of like free speech. It should only be restricted when there is an issue of public safety. You can go out in a paddock, miles from anywhere and yell "FIRE" until your ears bleed with no harm to anyone but yourself. But, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and there is immediately a public safety issue. In that example a right, free speech, is reasonably restricted. Now, applying that logic in aviation and every restriction that is placed on our flying has to be justified using the public safety argument. The onus of proof for the introduction of a restriction should be with the regulator. It should not be up to the individual to prove that what they want to do is safe. "Safe" is never absolute as was demonstrated tragically when a pilot was recently killed by his aeroplane while it was still in his hangar. "Safe" is a judgement call - a balance of of risk probability and consequence. My Tecnam is designed to a lower level of strength and has 50 kg less strength built in. It fits neatly under the 600kg limit with a good payload. But, it is intrinsically a weaker airframe - it is made in the same manner as the Sling but with 50kg less material. In my book, stronger = better. RAAus is not seeking 700kg it is seeking equivalence with the CASA's competing qualification the RPL. CASA has put in writing that the RPL and RPC are equivalent qualifications. They are intended to compete. We just want to see that competition on a level airfield. Kasper, this is one argument I don't ever follow. GA and RA are man made creations - totally artificial, historical and now anachronistic. They do not serve us well and create divisions that are not logical or helpful. A much more logical way to look at the aviation divide is commercial and recreational. Such a divide would be a much more logical for all sorts of purposes especially rulemaking. Regulations need to have more to do with the laws of physics and risk management than proper nouns. You might be happy flying rag and tube but frankly, it puts the wind up me both figuratively and meteorologically. Similarly, you might be happy to dust off your PPL and fly a Citabria and do aeros. :plane:But, if you wanted to do those things you would not need a PPL as you can do them with the RPL which is on offer with no conversion required. If CASA stick to their newly declared principles you would be able to do them with an RPC. The thing I don't understand is that if I want to fly in CTA and I have the aircraft to do it with and I've done the training and been assessed as competent why should my doing that bother a person who just wants to enjoy the thrills of stooging about in a Fisher Mk 1.?

In my one-off experience as PIC flying into a controlled airport (Tamworth) I was so impressed as to how much safer it was than flying into non-towered aerodromes especially unfamiliar ones. While it was quite stressful as a first timer in CTA, looking back on it, it was not rocket surgery and I think an endorsement would not be a challenge for anyone who has their XC endo. Being able to avoid Tiger country will be a huge boost to our safe access up and down the coast. After going in and out of Canberra (on RPT) in the last few days and seeing lots of light aircraft mixing it with the big stuff with no issues, I am convinced that having access to airports like that would add a lot to what you can do with an LSA. My Sling is as well or better equipped than most light GA aircraft and certainly a lot younger. There is no safety argument I can accept for keeping a trained and tested pilot flying over tiger country and denied access to very useful airports. With regard to MTOW, I have no desire to do more than what my Pilot Certificate entitles me to do fly day VFR with max 2 pob. Essentially, I'd just like to fly my aircraft at its designed MTOW (700 kg) rather than the artificial, bureaucratic 600 kg. Limiting my strong aircraft to 600 kg just forces fuel management and range issues on me that I need not have. Allowing the Euro 750 kg MTOW in Australia would, over time, see a progressive improvement in the design strength and fuel capacity of two-seat light aircraft flying under RAAus without breaching the 45 Kt stall requirement. My aircraft at 600 kg has a stall of 39 knots and exactly the same aircraft at 700 kg is just one knot higher at 40 knots - what's the big deal? Chris, you don't need a PPL to get CTA or even 1,500 kg MTOW, you can get all that on an RPL with the CTA endorsements. So, if it is available on an RPL why not then on CASA's declared equivalent qualification the RPC? I'm not about to trade my beautiful Sling in on an old clunker Piper/Cessna/ etc. to have two empty seats and a killer fuel bill but others might like to go that way and that should be their right.

Lack of broad interest is no excuse for inadequate communication to those who may be interested. I hope that wasn't read from what I wrote above. The lawyers are not the creators/authors of the new Constitution. That is the job of the elected representatives. It is not possible to have a large group design a structure and map it with a set of rules. Even if the "Committee" was 100 strong it would still only be 1% of the membership. When I set out to do it in 2012, I had a committee of four to do the design and drafting and of course anything we'd have come up with would have needed vetting by the lawyers, the Board and the membership. The job of the lawyers is to ensure that we do not cross legal boundaries and to suggest techniques for achieving what we have in mind but are not clear on how to express it. There are so many pieces of legislation that affect how we might structure and operate. In response to the invitation that was put to the general membership to tell the Board what they wanted from constitution reform there were only two responses from ordinary members - I was one of those two ordinary members. Not sure I fully understand this comment. But supposing I do understand what you were saying I am willing to say that there will be significant Constitution reform and it could be in place for the 2016-17 year. This work will be finished and it will be acted on.

Fascinating and touching to read the stories above about our shared passion. My parents were big fans of the legends of flying - Kingsford Smith and Charles Ulm and many, many more. But, none of my family ever flew other than as an RPT pax. I built plenty of Airfix models but never got into RC. These days I wonder why but it was probably down to money and lack of initiative. As a kid, I used to walk through the Royal Newcastle Aero Club (where Nev was although I didn't know that at the time) on the way to the adjoining sports fields. The smell of the hangars, the Chipmunks and Tiger Moths were larger than life. I read Reach for the Sky (saw the film) loved Biggles and Blackhawk and any movie about aeroplanes. For some, never to be understood reason, it never occurred to me that I should learn to fly. Just seemed to be something that legends did. When the penny finally did drop, I firstly went to two GA schools and came across arrogant GA CFI's who looked down their noses at me like I was a pimply faced kid. As I had turned 60 by then I wasn't going to cop that crap. Then, by chance, I discovered the Esqual and that it could be flown with an RAA pilot cert and it'd take just 20 hours! Anyhow, despite a bit of a setback on Lesson 1 (got a bit queasy - never have since) I persisted right through the stage where I wondered if I'd ever be able to land an aeroplane. Now all I wonder is if I'll ever have another really good landing. I've pushed to the top end of RAAus aircraft and am keen to get some more restrictions lifted particularly MTOW and CTA. I don't think of the CAOs etc. as giving us "privileges" but the reverse they just raise some of the restrictions that have no basis in being there. I took an interest in the organisation only because it was then so badly run there was a real chance, a probability even, that it was not going to last much longer. It has taken nearly 5 years but I am confident we are now on the right path to a robust future. I believe CTA (only for those who want it, have the required equipment and are prepared to do the training) is within our reach and safer MTOWs are similarly achievable. Not going to happen overnight but it must happen.

Incidentally Kasper, the percentage of RAAus members who are really interested in things like the Constitution is probably in single digits (i.e. <10%) and of course *everybody* was interested to know October would be both OctSober and RAAus Safety Month - sort of go together.

Thanks for the "hint". One clear point of agreement from the management and the Board is that with regard to communications there is plenty of room to get better and get better we must. Trouble is they are so busy fixing things and generating progress they sometimes don't get around to telling everyone about it. They were surprised that there was so much interest in the appointment of the new training coordinator the announcement of which seemed to slip below the radar. Interestingly, I spent the day in the RAAus Office in Canberra yesterday. I thought for a moment I must have come to the wrong address (not really). From the instant I opened the front door I could see the change in the place. It bears no comparison to the bad old days of just a few years ago. The place buzzes. The staff, when they haven't got their noses to the grindstone pop up with a big smile. The Office is neat and tidy - it looks well organised because it is. Hope some forumites can make it to Bundaberg for the AGM. Please make yourself known to me and don't pull the cunning stunt Bex did to me at Ausfly. Got a me a beauty - twice!

David, The current draft is still being reviewed by the Board. There have been variations suggested by the lawyers as recently as this week. It is as you appreciate a massive undertaking and there is no point offering an unfinished or legally defective document for comment. The development process is quite robust and exhaustive. It allows for months of consultation with interested members. It is not going to be rushed and dumped on an uninformed member. It is not going to be put to a vote at the AGM but it will be explained - both the document and the thinking that has gone into it. The review of our Constitution is something most would know is close to my heart having kicked the process off formally in 2012 only to have it scuttled by a few who were jealous of their power and the prestige they drew from being an RAAus Board Member. Pity they didn't draw their satisfaction from their day job instead. I am not under any circumstances going to support a Constitution that does not ensure the long term efficient and good governance of RAAus. That has been the aim all along.

I agree that 700/750 kg is the sweet spot. Strong, comfortable, good fuel capacity and fuel efficiency. That'll do me, personally, for all time.

The usual LSA 600 kg and the Euro VLA 750 kg class (but at 700 kg). The aircraft is strong enough to go to the full 750 kg but they might need to reconsider the wing to stay under 45 KCAS stall in the landing config. The J230 can have 700 kg when VH reg (J430). The J170 is only LSA and at 600 kg with only 80 hp it would struggle to lift any more (imho). The J160 C was type certified at, I think 540 kg but was later granted 600 kg The J160 D is LSA and limited to 600 kg. Again I doubt it would be suited to a higher MTOW with just the 80 hp Agreed. It would be very easy to change the Sling rego from LSA to JLA as a means to get 700 kg as it is already certified for that from the factory. For home built Slings, they can already get 700 kg as VH ABA and would be able to have 700 kg in RAAus as a 19 reg if/when RAAus gets clearance to 1,500 kgs. EASA VLA is very like CASA/FAA LSA except up to 750 kg (and no cruise speed limit). From the great wizard of Wiki: EASA CS-VLA is the [/url]European Aviation Safety Agency C ertification S pecification for V ery L ight A ircraft. The Very Light Aircraft or VLA aircraft certification category introduced in 2003 by the EASA is intended to make it easier and less costly to get full European certification of a [/url]general aviation aircraft. The somewhat relaxed certification procedure is available for aircraft satisfying the following criteria: A single engine with spark or compression ignition (i.e. no jets). One or two seats. Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of not more than 750 kg. Stall speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of no more 83 km/h (45 knots). A CS-VLA aircraft is not certified for aerobatics and may be flown under daylight visual flight rules only.

True, there are some and the SLing and J230 are just two that I know. Another I know of is the Arion Lightning that has 650 kg when not LSA. But, there are lot of Euro aircraft that are built "down" to the 600 kg to get the best empty weight/payload. Similarly there are lot of Euro sourced aircraft that were originally "overbuilt" for the 450 kg category and have been "stretched" to pass as 600 kg LSA and would never meet higher than 600 kg safely. Obviously, it depends on the particular aircraft as to whether it could ever conceivably be registered at more than 600 kg. A 1,500 kg MTOW allowed would bring a number of the excellent RVs into RAAus and that would not be a bad thing at all.

There are Slings registered VH and with the 700 kg MTOW. One Sling has circumnavigated the Earth. It had a take-off weight around 1,100 kg. Quite a bit of fuel on board and flown across the South Atlantic from Africa to the Americas. Nuts perhaps but demonstrated the strength of this "LSA". I'm happy to keep it registered RAAus and hold CASA to their word that the RPL and RPC are equivalent. RAAus has not always been the easiest mob to deal with for everybody but I get the impression that VH could be out of the pan and into the fire.

What Jill Bailey said at AUSFLY was that RAAus was seeking equivalence with the RPL that CASA has said, in print, is "equivalent". That means, of course, 1,500 kg MTOW. I don't have more good info than that yet but I'm thinking that would entitle a RPC holder to fly an RAAus registered aircraft that has an MTOW 1,500 kg or less. Next issue then is what aircraft can be registered at what MTOW? For the answer to that we have to go back to the Av Law in place now and as amended as a part of the process of equating privileges between RPL and RPC. There is the Euro EASA 750kg standard but that may mean achieving Type Cert at that weight. I can't see any LSA manufacturers being prepared to go to that expense. LSA is set at 600 kg around the world and while that may be difficult to change it is not impossible and it would be easier if EASA and the FAA went that way. Type Cert J230 might be easier to get an STC to take it to 700 kg. My LSA Sling when registered GA Exp has an MTOW of 700 kg. It is a very strongly built aeroplane and, like the J230, would simply be able to have better fuel management with an increase to the design MTOW. Keeping those aircraft at an artificial 600 kg merely compromises safety by restricting the amount of fuel they can carry. The LSA MTOW rule can in this circumstance be seen to be anti safety. By all means stick with 2 pob, piston engine, 45 kts stall but what is the sense of restricting strength of build and fuel carrying capacity? The principle has to be that RAAus can register aircraft at their manufacturer approved MTOW up to 1,500 kg. Exactly how that is achieved is the job in front of RAAus staff and the Board.

I recall that one of the potential drawbacks for RAAus going to 750kg is that we could see a lot of 50+ year old aircraft with age/corrosion issues flood in. With our limited Tech Dept numbers that could create quite a management issue. Not saying don't do it, quite the reverse but 750kg or 1,500 kg are not without challenges.

Sue, in the longer run, quality will be important. Attempting to do what you are is amazing to me and highly laudable. We do need as an organisation to preserve this material and I agree it should be digitized not just photocopied for the reasons you state. It is also important to retain any colour. I still think RA-Aus should look at getting it done professionally - if it cost $10,000 it is still just one dollar per member. There should be no detectable damage to the original magazines if done professionally. To do OCR you need to start with a very high resolution image - the higher the better for good OCR. High Res means huge files and definitely not something you'd want to try transmitting at low bandwidth.

True. It is not for everyone and we manage OK without it. Personally, it would be worth the bother to me. Having now experienced ATC flying into YSTW, I want CTA even more. It would improve safety and convenience getting up and down the Coast. The blanket rule-out of amateur built aircraft is not good policy and should be looked at. There needs to be an inspection and airworthiness certification available. There is no doubt that some amateur built aircraft are much better built than factory builts. The issue should be the quality of the build not the name of the builder. A transponder was of no use getting in to Tamworth but would be at many airports and in transit. I find it comforting when the controllers at Bris or Melb identify my aircraft to IFR traffic and knowing that up and down the coast the RPT can "see" me. A set of wig wag landing lights is the best thing you can have for being seen in the vicinity of airports. Not wasted in my case. My Sling in, LSA guise, in the landing config, stalls at MTOW 600 kg at 39 KCAS. Exactly the same aircraft with VH reg stalls in the landing config @ 700kg at 40 KCAS. As you can imagine, I'm very keen to see the 700 kg available to me. Even a 182 @ MTOW of 1,400 kgs stalls at 49 knots. Sensing the difference between 49 and 45 kts at touchdown is not going to worry a reasonably capable sport pilot. And perhaps a set of cleverly designed winglets could bring even the C182 under 45KCAS. True, it will take a lot of urging to happen. But, it has been on the RAAus agenda for the last 10 years at least. It's time has come.

Please, don't get me started on that ridiculous RAMPC. I don't have a big problem with something more credible than the "be your own brain surgeon" self certification but the RAMPC is a thinly-disguised attempt to not have a drivers licence medical. As has been pointed out by many, unless you are young and very healthy and could breeze through a Class 2 , the RAMPC is of no use. Whereas in the USA there is a bill before the house to expand the LSA medical, in Australia, under the influence of the now ex DAS McCormick and the ex head of Av Med, we got the Claytons DL medical. Personally, I'm very happy every year to sit in with my GP and have him go through his checklist and then issue a certificate of my medical fitness. It is a comfort to me in that my passengers can reasonably expect not to have to take over the controls due to my incapacitation from a condition that my GP could have identified and remedied in advance. At worst that costs me a long consultation and at best Medicare picks up the tab. I'm not advocating that RAAus change its current practice on medicals but I would be comfortable with a GP certification IF you wanted to have CTA.

Jill Bailey, at AUSFLY, advised those in attendance that there is an acceptance by CASA in principle for CTA. However, there is an enormous amount of work that has to be done for RAAus to be in a position to train and examine Pilots for a CTA endorsement. Training the trainers, writing a syllabus and examinations and the not trivial matter of changing aviation law. There was a push by RAAus 10 years or more ago to get RAAus max MTOWs in line with the Euro 750kg standard. That was stymied, inter alia, by DAS McCormick. But now there is a very simple logical argument that a person with an RPC should have the same MTOW limit as a person with an "equivalent" RPL, viz, 1,500 kg. Again, while the argument is decided, engineering CASRs etc. is still in front of us. Let's hope we can get it done before Albanese comes back as the Minister and does what was done for six years - absolutely nothing.

Well put Peter. Apologies to all in advance for the length of this post but, I thought it was important to contend the communication issue. Nobody on the Board now would argue we've got it right - yet. But, I know they understand the need to do better. When it comes to matters dictated by the Constitution, there is no argument - it just has to be done. As everyone knows, "democracy" was something some Greeks dreamed up in one little City/State called (in English) Athens . This was a system of government where those who were entitled to vote (and it was far from universal suffrage) voted on every issue that was decided. Representative democracy evolved from that system but is markedly different. In a representative democracy, we elect people to make the decisions for us and some of those decisions while good for the country may not suit us as individuals. Members are entitled to lobby Directors on any issue in advance or in arrears of a decision being taken. There are few decisions that can't be undone if there is a demonstrated need. A Director is required to use their best judgement based on their education/experience and research on the issue. They should balance that judgement with the thinking of the other Directors and the sentiment of the constituency. I use the word "sentiment" because it is often not much more than that. A Director who is doing the job right needs to work hard and invest considerable time on the issues, argue with fellow Board Members and come up with the optimum answer - for the entire organisation and not just the local voters or a vocal minority. I'll leave it for others to judge the work put in by some before cranking up their keyboard. And, incidentally, we on this Forum constitute a noisy minority. Not saying the noise isn't a good one just that we are a very small sample of the membership (some are not even members) and not a random sample. Perhaps we are closer to a sample of those who take the trouble to think about issues and vote in elections? One of the things I found when on the Board in 2011-12 was that I was so busy with RAAus matters that the time available to communicate with the members on this Forum was at a premium. Too busy doing to talk about it. Not a good situation and one that I do not expect to be repeated in this term. Over the last five years we've put some 25 Special Resolutions to the Membership directed at forcing the Board to communicate better with the members. Things like ensuring that we got the full Financials well in advance of the AGM not a pathetic scrap of paper at the AGM. It is definitely chalk and cheese now compared with those days. I guess my questions are: Have you emailed a Board Member and advised them of your disappointment on the quality of the two-way communication between the Board and the Members? Have you offered some guidance as to the type of information you feel you should be getting? Have you offered your feedback on decisions taken or provided your thinking on issues not yet resolved? Have you asked the Staff (CEO) why something you expect to be able to see on the Website is not visible? Have you given the Board the opportunity to indicate whether they think they are doing well or could do better? Have you given the Board an opportunity to counter suggestions that they have not consulted well enough on a particular issue? Doing stuff yourself always seems to achieve better results than talking to unconnected people about what could be better. I attended the RAAus briefing at AUSFLY on the weekend and learned some really interesting things about what the Board has in their sights regarding CTA and an MTOW increase and about the newly re-written Tech Manual. Some of that was in the minutes of the last Board Meeting - well worth a read. I took the opportunity to have a chat to Michael Linke and Mick Monck at the RAAus stand and I didn't have to get in a queue to do that as they were readily accessible. Their mobile numbers and email addresses are published to make it easy for members to communicate with the Board. It is true that if all 10,000 members individually posted questions to the Board the result would be a log jam. By the same token if anything like that ever happened, the Board and CEO would get the message 5 x 5 that they need to be initiating better communication to prevent the need to ask the questions. One area the Board and all of us know that they can do better is our decrepit website. Their is some real money (yours) being spent on it to bring it into the 21st Century. Still, I have some concerns why the content is not being maintained better in the interim. It looks at the moment like somebody has just given up on it. With a decent website/portal and a user-friendly content management system there will be no excuse for crap on the website.

What I will see is the Board Forum. All the rest is or should be available on the website. . . . One of my all time favourite ditties.

Whatever you call them they must be minuted. The Secretary, in accordance with 14B (ii) must "Ensure all Board Resolutions are published within 7 days in the Members Only Section of the RA-Aus website with the report to include how each Board Member voted and the Resolution summarised only where that is essential to protect reasonable confidentiality." We need to know who voted which way so we can be better informed when we vote at the next Board election.