DonRamsay

And see how well that worked! Newcastle Steelworks got shelled and Lithgow wasn't. A raid could be launched from a stealthy aircraft carrier on Williamtown but the aircraft would be spotted before they got to Tamworth. There'd be a good 5 minutes warning available.

I heard to day that somebody, an individual (CAMEL?), has been successful in a Freedom of Information request and supports the notion that the data CASA relied on for its harsh punitive action against Jabiru owners and operators was grossly inadequate. RAAus had requested this info from CASA on several occasions but as far as I know got stonewalled.

A bit harsh Turbs but informative.

Thanks Camel, I had a look but the second ref was a bit too heavy for this time of night. While it sounded like I was suggesting CASA can't be sued for legal reasons, it is perhaps closer to reality to say that they have bottom less pockets and would be extremely difficult financially to take on.

Thanks Col. Smiling now but I have to lose a few kilos so I can fill the tanks :-(

Col, that is all absolutely spot on. When I got on the Board I asked at the first Board Meeting why we had such enormous reserves. All I got was blank stares from the Board and dollar signs in the eyes of the staff who were allowed to sit in on Board Meetings. From my asking that question, the then CEO went away and came back with a recommendation for a substantial pay increase for the staff. The Board had been working on the principle that they should aim for a 10% surplus each year with no idea what a sensible level of reserves should be. The current Board has debated exactly that question and have put the excess surplus to good use in developing 21st Century IT systems that will reduce our costs. CASA has forced RAAus to have a much higher cost structure with their demands without properly compensating RAAus. But CASA can do that because they are largely a law unto themselves. GA Admin costs are covered by the aviation fuels levy but RA has to fend for itself.

As far as I read the law (as a non lawyer) CASA can't be sued, there is no ombudsman, they can't be taken to the Administrative Appeals tribunal. They seem top be a law unto themselves. They have absolute power and we know what absolute power does . . . corrupts absolutely some might say. No employee of a corporation can be sued for actions done "in good faith" as a servant of his/her employer. Directors of corporations can be sued but they are usually covered by insurance. I doubt there is any chance of holding CASA accountable for anything. The only "weapon" available is bad publicity. For all that, I am prepared to give the new brooms a chance to fix the CASA culture. So far SKidmore and the Chairman are doing a good job in getting rid of the bad apples that led and created the poor culture. If only they had the requirement that the FAA has of promoting aviation they might not be so awful.

Col, I'm happy for the Military to have a reasonable amount of airspace to play in but they grab huge amounts and have it active when in the real world it is not being used. Newcastle and Port Stephens do very well out of having the RAAF base at Williamtown and I personally don't mind it being there - just believe that, militarily, it should not be located within shelling range of the coast. And with the Government spending another $1 billion on Williamtown to cater for the F35 JSFm there is no way it will be moved to Tamworth or anywhere else. Richmond is a bad place to have any sort of big airbase because of the number of foggy days and being at the foot of the mountains results in some "very interesting" wind patterns.

Part 61 looks like something from immediately Post WWII before computers were around and makes no use of modern technology. All you should need to carry is an App on your phone or a credit card sized license. All the paper is just plain backwards, retarded. CASA officials if they want more detail than is printed on the Credit card sized license could look up on their smartphones or tablets. Part 61 makes CASA look as backward and retarded as it can be.

If it were up to me Richmond and Williamtown would be relocated to Tamworth. Help with decentralisation as well as being more secure and free up the coastal fringe for fun flying.

No, it has more to do with their profligate grab for airspace. Have a look at how much of Eastern/Central NSW has been grabbed by the RAAF Richmond/Williamtown/Tamworth. Richmond restricted areas go out to Gunnedah and Gilgandra. Why? Because they can and did. At least the Williamtown Airspace is, for the first time ever, coming under a comprehensive review and redesign. The outcome is likely to be more Class C around the Military/Civilian YWLM but better access to altitude up the current Ultralight Lane. Have a look around SE Qld where there is another massive grab that is largely historical. Look at Oakley and wonder why they need any restricted airspace other than the immediate runway precinct.

Did you really mean "honest"? I can understand how you could form the view of them not being "open", but less than honest? That's a bit pessimistic - surely you wouldn't really expect that? Could you imagine such a process to resulting in a positive outcome? (p.s. it's 21 days notice of a motion for a Special Resolution). It is true that there can be no changes to a motion for a Special Resolution made at a General Meeting. That is the Law. That's why there has to be time for examination of the proposal beforehand and the opportunity for incorporation of suggestions where warranted, especially for a matter of this magnitude. My personal view is that the Board needs to be able to have a completely free flowing, unfettered discussion - in camera. A Board Member needs to be able to come up with an idea however clever or looney and have the idea thrashed out. What is important is the Board Resolution which, as a result of an amendment I sponsored, must be communicated to the members including which Board Members voted for, which against and any abstentions.

You may have noticed that Port Stephens is dominated by hugely expansive RAAF Restricted Airspace. There is a private strip YREM Remlap Park (Palmer spelled backwards). Never been in there but understand it is pretty tricky to get in and out of due to the restricted airspace. Closest you'd get to Port Stephens is likely to be YMND or YCNK. You can than the RAAF for that.

We all need to take a deep breath and remember that this organisation was a shipwreck up until February 2013 when the Members got off their butts and said "No more!". Since then the control of the Board has shifted to a group of hard working, conscientious and capable people one of them being Maj. We have new Ops and Tech Managers that inherited Manuals that were long overdue for a total refurb and CASA jumping up and down wanting the manuals revised forthwith. So, after plugging the holes in the shipwreck, re-floating it and trying to turn it around, some corners have been cut. I agree with all the comments that the Board can lift its game on consultation and on tapping the incredible resource that 10,000 members represents. However, there were some things that had to be pushed through with vigour with perhaps less consultation than desirable. The new Ops Manual was a significant step forwards and is NOT carved in stone. It has a Version Number and is up for periodic review. There is every intention to have it as a live document that will just improve with time and input. So, if you don't like the Ops Manual as is, send in detailed criticisms including what improving changes can be made. Communicate your ideas to the Ops Manager, the CEO and the Board - don't wait to be invited. You will be doing all 10,000 members a big favour by doing that. Talking about it on here is never going to make much of a difference however good it makes you feel. I know that the people that Maj is responding to on this thread *do* respect him both for his technical ability and dedication to making RAAus better. I hope he realises this and accepts the "advice" he's getting here as well intended on not personal. Constitution Reform We are all aware that there have been moves to have the Constitution revised since at least February 2012 when the then Board approved the formation of a Constitution Review Committee - only to kill it off a few months later at the whim of the then President. The Committee was subsequently reformed but as far as I am aware never produced anything much. It was clear at the Queanbeyan General Meeting that there was a wide acceptance that the Constitution needed to change and that a Board of 13 was, to say the least, unwieldy. The work facing the Board in formulating a new Constitution is legally technical. You need to decide the form of incorporation and possibly the place of incorporation that would suit an organisation of the size of RAAus with the not-for-profit purpose that it has for existence. That decision making will benefit from the input of an aviation specialist lawyer like Spencer Ferrier. It is not something many other members would claim expertise for. As for the details, the 75% majority required ensures that there has to be serious actual consultation and the feedback absorbed, or it simply will not clear that high hurdle. I agree with Col Jones that it would have been good to get a crack at the parameters before anybody made too many decisions but I have confidence in the small group that has been working on it to produce a handy first draft for our review.

Is it possible we could end up with duplicates of an aircraft showing up on screens? As an OzRunways aircraft and as a result of ADS-B out?

We are talking about very low volume but important RPT traffic. just a few flights per day. If it warranted a full scale professional ATC then ASA would need to provide the service. This is a light grey matter not black or white. The continuous listening brief and momentary actions is unlikely, in any way to compromise fire and rescue readiness and in any degree will be a plus for RPT, GA and RA safety.

Like it or not but transponders and ADS-B are the way of the future. Not being able to fly above 5,000 ft is not a restriction I am happy with so I have a transponder. Being "seen" by the RPT blokes is a very good thing in my book.

Give the one or two that will do the job a new contract and proper compensation. It is not the men refusing to do the work, it is their el supremo not wanting to risk it. If they can learn fire and rescue, they can, if they want to and are allowed to, learn about traffic guidance and weather info. We are not looking for meteorologists and air traffic controllers. And we are talking very part time. That sounds like industrial demarcation that I thought died out after killing off the NSW State Dockyard where a welder had to find a carpenter (shipwright) to move a piece of scrap timber that was in his way. True story. Really, it just a matter of being happy to have a go at a different skill, being allowed by the hierarchy to do it and by working through the training. I would imagine it would take a lot less training that it takes to become proficient at Fire & Rescue. Couldn't agree more - so let them do the training while they are waiting for something to happen. No knowledge of any of that. And in any case, must be water under the bridge and not something to be used to prevent a good development happening.

Is it just a timing thing or are there a Lightwing 2000 and a Super Petrel accidents missing from the stats. A single fatality (PIC) and injured pax in a ditching off North Curl Curl and the collision into Lake Jindabyne (?) with two fatalities.

Operating something akin to a Unicom is not something that takes a trained professional. Yes, a retired ATC would do it better and a pilot with a little training could do it well enough. Not all fireies might achieve proficiency but many would. It is very selfish of young Angus to make his service look good at the expense of the greater good. There just aren't that many fire emergencies at Ballina that require 13 people standing around holding their ...... breath waiting for something bad to happen. These people must be under utilised. One of the 13 could be trained and do it on the very part time basis required. If they can have success with this system it in the USA it can't be that hard.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pilots-back-reforms-for-air-space-overhaul/story-e6frg95x-1227439294191 "The union representing pilots has thrown its weight behind an audacious move to transform management of the nation’s skies by adopting the safer US model extending air traffic control over more airspace, particularly in regional areas. The move also has the clear support of Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who as minister responsible for aviation will soon release a new airspace policy statement calling on aviation authorities to “adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia’s aviation environment”. But other aspects of the new direction unveiled last week by the new chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Jeff Boyd, have run into immediate resistance. The government organisation which controls the nation’s air traffic, Airservices Australia, has reiterated its refusal to have the fire crews it employs at regional airports man radios to provide pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and air traffic information, defying moves by CASA to clear a regulatory path for them to do so. The insistence of Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston that his organisation’s fire and rescue officers will not provide the Unicom radio advice service, as their US firefighter counterparts do at many regional airports, could result in higher air ticket prices. Regional airports such as Ballina on the NSW north coast which want to introduce a radio service will be forced, in the absence of Airservices firefighters doing so, to hire retired air traffic controllers to perform the role, charging airlines the additional costs, which they will in turn pass on to passengers. Sir Angus’s position pits him against Mr Boyd, who said he would sponsor a board directive aimed at freeing up the range of information that ground staff — including, potentially, fire fighters — can provide to pilots. Airservices and the air traffic controllers union, Civil Air, are united on the firefighters issue, with the union insisting on no changes to the current regulations, which prohibit any person who has not held a controller’s licence in the past 10 years from providing air traffic and weather information. As revealed by The Weekend Australian, CASA will progressively review airspace around the country with a view to extending control where radar or other surveillance technologies permit. Unlike the airspace system in the US and Canada, where commercial aircraft throughout the two countries are always directed by air traffic controllers almost to the runway, whether or not there is radar coverage, Australia has a patchwork system. Apart from the larger cities, controlled airspace generally only comes down to 8500 feet. At this point controllers no longer direct aircraft and pilots are required to talk to each other over the radio to establish each other’s position and work out manoeuvres to avoid colliding with each other. CASA is expected to first expand controlled airspace around Ballina, with a recommendation likely soon to lower the level above which controllers still direct traffic from 8500 feet to 5000 feet. The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said pilots heartily endorsed the move. “We absolutely support that. It gives greater protection to air traffic,” Mr Booth said. He also praised a report by US air traffic control expert Jeff Griffith, who was commissioned by The Australian last week to review Australian airspace, 11 years after the federal government brought him here to help introduce a US-style national airspace system. “This has not happened, but I strongly support this objective even today,” Mr Griffith wrote in his report. Civil Air president Daryl Hickey said he was unable to comment because the union had not seen the specifics of the proposed airspace changes. The manager of Ballina Byron Gateway Airport, Neil Weatherson, has said he would prefer the 17 firefighters based at the airport in a new $13.5 million station with its own viewing tower, to provide the radio service, since they were there anyway and well placed to do so. But he said last week that because Airservices leadership showed no sign of budging, he would instead hire retired air traffic controllers to provide the local weather and traffic advice to pilots. This will require employing three or four new staff, at a cost Mr Weatherson said he would pass on to airlines as airport charges, to in turn be passed on to passengers. An Airservices spokesman reiterated the view expressed by Sir Angus that its firefighters’ prime duty was to be always ready to deal quickly with emergencies. “Our services include rapid response to any incident, anywhere on an airport, in less than three minutes,” Airservices said, adding that this included dealing with any medical incident. The service made more than 6700 responses nationally last year, with 28 lives saved, the spokesman said. Aviator and businessman Dick Smith, who has lobbied for firefighters to provide the radio service, described Airservices’ position as “outrageous’’. “They have a monopoly on providing the fire service, so the airport can’t hire its own fire fighters and direct what duties they will perform, but Airservices won’t provide the radio service,’’ Mr Smith said."

In the past we have expressed concerns about the apathy of RAAus members when it comes to taking an interest in how the organisation is being run as evidenced by the small proportion who exercise their democratic privilege by voting in elections. With the following people returned unopposed, I think we all have a a good reason to have not opposed them as they have all put in a creditable performance. Michael Monck (NSW) Tony King (SQLD) Trevor Bange (SQLD) Ed Smith (WA) Mick's leadership and his ability to bring Michael Linke up to speed quickly has been remarkable. We will see more dramatic improvements over the next few months as some of the projects that have a longer time frame come to fruition. The Executive with addition of Tony King and Jim Tatlock has been the best we've seen in many years. Jim has consistently exceeded the requirements of the role of Treasurer and his explanations of the financials at General Meetings has been very welcome and a considerable improvement over what we had been seeing. Trevor Bange, in addition to his active participation at Board level has made a sizeable contribution particularly with the work he did on our Association's insurances portfolio to the benefit of all members. Teresa Avila is of course new to us but hardly a beginner. It will be very interesting to watch her contributions over the next two years.

Col, I'm sure Ross wasn't thinking of you in his comments. Nobody could fault your continued interest over a long period of time and your always constructive thoughtful criticisms. I also think that the current Board would not argue with your assertion that: I seem to remember Mick Monck saying as much in writing recently. They are often so busy doing that they don't get around to letting us know what they have been doing. And plenty of the stuff they are involved with has long lead times - especially anything to do with CASA.I also agree with your assessment of Teresa Avila - she appears to be very well qualified for a Board role and her career experiences will be a great asset to RAAus.

The HV Airshow was actually professionally organised by Paul Bennett. Top show.

Col, Has that info been published by RAAus officially yet? If so where so?