DonRamsay

Keith Rule is off to the USA shortly to do four Rotax courses over there including one on the 912iS Sport. And a very good thing because I'll need him to look after mine!

OK, I'm no lawyer and I do not hold a PPL or higher but, just for fun, let's consider a theoretical situation. - A person as rich and as aviation experienced as, say, Dick Smith does a few hours at Bankstown in a VH registered Tecnam Sierra as a type familiarisation using his PPL. Passes with flying colours. - Bankstown subsequently decide that they have no further use for that particular Sierra and put it up for sale. A mate of Dick's buys the aircraft and registers it with RAAus. - The fictional Dick character then does a few solo circuits in his mate's the now RAAus registered Tecnam Sierra. - RAAus hears about it and gets the hump and has a moan to CASA. - CASA feels compelled to take action against the "offending" pilot. - The Pilot hires a team of QCs and says "bring it on". Now try and picture the meeting at the DPP's office when CASA explains the facts of the matter to the DPP. The DPP asks to be reminded what the "offence" was. CASA quotes a heap of Regs at them. And the DPP then asks a few questions: - Is there even the slightest doubt that the Pilot when flying with his PPL in a VH registered Tec Sierra was 100% competent? Answer: "no doubt at all of competency". - Is there any significant technical difference between the aircraft when VH registered and when RAAus registered? Answer: "No, aircraft is unchanged in any way". - the DPP then throws the CASA fellow out of his office (via the window on the 10th floor) and says "don't come back - ever". Moral of the story is that undeniably, a PPL is clearly a superior aviation qualification to a Pilot Certificate and a prosecution of a PPL for flying an RAAus registered aircraft for which there is no doubting the PPL's capability to fly that particular aircraft would get laughed out of Court if it ever got that far. Surely, the courts would (eventually) come to the conclusion that the Regs were an abuse of power and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal or higher would have no difficulty throwing in the bin where they belong any Reg that supported an otherwise nonsensical prosecution. You don't need to look at Regs to work out what is right or wrong. You need to step back and have a hard look from a great height at the whole picture. No politician is going to thank CASA for making them look like morons to the world at large and Judges in particular. Just my uninformed opinion. As somebody said, we need somebody like Dick to take on this sort of silliness and resolve it. I honestly doubt that a law could be written successfully that could reverse the fact of a PPL being a superior qualification to a Pilot Certificate. The justification for the 5 hour conversion from GA and the need to hold a RPC is based on the fact that a PPL or CPL pilot might have been used to flying heavier MECIR aircraft and a rag and tube aircraft is a very different thing. But, since the difference between RA and GA has been blurred at the edges, that logic would have a hard time being defended on the grounds of Safety. This issue could create a significant problem for RAAus if it ever was clearly resolved, unfavourably from an RAAus point of view. But, in the long run, common sense should prevail and a PPL should be able to operate an RAAus aircraft as long as they have proved they are competent on type.

Tony King was at the Clifton flyin and I reminded him that we need the Resolutions on the website brought up to date. I reminded him that there was a General Meeting on at Cessnock in early May and that if not resolved by then there would be pointed questions. Not an excuse but they lack a user friendly content management system for their website. As you know the website is being re-written to be the front end of their revised Pulse database. Unfortunately, more work in progress without the results yet that we all want to see.

What a new group of engineers is doing is not so much how to get better cooling but looking to reduce heat from the sources especially friction. This would allow more power and reduced rich running that does cool but at a cost not just of fuel but also of engine wear.

CASA put it in writing that the RPL & RPC are "equivalent" and we know they are always correct. It is now RAAus job to make that happen.

Col, the value of your membership was reduced some time (years) ago when mal administration resulted in a few years of losses reducing reserves and threatening insolvency within 3 or so years. This current Board is working hard and has eliminated the likelihood of insolvency but has not yet achieved the structural changes to costs that are necessary to get a respectable level of membership service and lower costs and improved value. But, that work is happening and the new CEO is showing real talent for getting value for every dollar of members funds expended. The cost reductions from not printing and mailing out so many magazines is being absorbed in deficit reduction for now. I'm not particularly happy about that but am prepared to wear it in the short term. Some of the improvement work, particularly the total redesign a recoding of IT systems will take, I would estimate, another 12 months. There will be a substantial capital expenditure required but the feasibility work is showing a very good return and fast payback both in cost reduction and functionality and service improvement. It will produce a much more attractive cost structure. It then becomes a question of policy as to whether the cost savings result in real reduction in fees or additional member valued services. I guess "honest" in this context means frank and more transparent after all, none on the Board will benefit financially from the magazine cost reduction exercise. But, we do elect the Board to make these strategic decisions and if you are not happy you can let your Reps know and ask them to explain there thinking. And there is always the last resort of the ballot paper. I was under the impression that the Board had made their intentions clear on what would happen with the cost savings from printing and distribution. A couple of other aspects of going digital should be remembered. You still have much the same composition of content costs and you get a vastly broader distribution over the net with no additional distribution costs. We need more people getting in to recreational aviation if we are to be able to sell our aircraft and hangars when the inevitable day comes when we have to hang up our wings. With the advent of the RPL, RAAus is no longer a monopoly. It has not had a monopoly on Trikes either. But, nobody, particularly Mick Monck, is arguing that RAAus has the right balance on Comms with the members. Definitely a work in progress. To me, the digital magazine is a step in the right direction and offers the benefit of information that is more current and offers a timely right of reply.

This is very much an unfinished story. CASA have described, in writing, that the RPL and RPC as "equivalent". So, in summary, what we appear to have is the Government entering into competition with a non government authority (RAAus) with a product, the RPL, that is free and has superior privileges. This fact has not been lost on RAAus and they are pursuing true equivalence including 1,500kg and CTA. The RPL has an unreasonable medical prerequisite that is extremely onerous and cynically named "drivers licence medical". For most over 50, a Class II medical is the realistic standard required for an RPL. In the USA there is a legislative push to make aviation medicals based on logical risk management principles for all non commercial aviation. Let's hope this common sense can migrate across the Pacific. With new Director of Av Safety and new Medical chief at CASA, and improved relationship with CASA's Sport Aviation , there is a real possibility of some good things happening for Rec Aviation in Australia.

Rhys, I've asked the Secretary to advise me of the status of reporting of Board Resolutions in accordance with the Constitution and he has undertaken to respond. Don

I can understand where your pessimism comes from Rhys. Two years ago I would have guessed that, if nothing improved, RA-Aus would have been wound up by now. But now I think you need to talk to a couple of your Regional Reps and have that conversation. I think there are grounds for reasonable optimism. You know we are coming off a very low base and that there is a long way still to go to get to be the efficient and effective organisation that we could be. I do have confidence in the current Board to get us there but it will take time and vigilance by members such as yourself to keep them moving in the right direction on the uphill struggle. I believe we have reason to be optimistic about the future relationship with CASA. The new Director of Av Safety has started well and has no ownership of the crap approach of his predecessor. McCormick, you may recall, announced his bias against RAA at the time he took up his role. So far Skidmore has done the opposite. Our newish CEO is a professional manager with a track record of success in organisations like ours. He has plenty to learn about aviation but is well supported in that area. RA-Aus has, in the past not lacked aviation experience, it has severely lacked sound management. Our Ops and Tech Managers are knowledgeable aviators but relatively new to management. Our Safety Manager is very experienced in her field. Clearly, we have a very sound basis for a successful future.

As you say Rhys, they are obliged by the Constitution to publish in the Members only section of the website any and all formal resolutions. The Board is free to have a discussion and agree a course of action without it being a formal resolution. Does not have the binding force of a resolution passed by a simple majority. As we've said if there were a formal resolution limiting a Board Member from attending a General Meeting it would not be valid.

Any Board Member that chose to attend would be entitled, under the Constitution, to be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses to attend - regardless of any Board decision on the matter.

Man doth not live by politics alone, there is bread and wine and the good stuff in the Hunter. Seriously though, this is likely to be a fairly low key event. The Association is in a state of flux and it probably looks like a duck gliding around the pond. You just can't see that there is a lot going on under the water. At least two of the three NSW Reps will be there and the team authorised to talk for the Board, ie the Exec will be there plus the CEO. I would think that group could handle any question put to them on the day. If you wanted to, you could send the Secretary questions on notice to be answered at the GM. I can tolerate short term increases in fees as long as the Board has a firm intent of reducing the cost structure and eventually the fees in real terms. I remind them of this view every chance I get. But, for a while they need to spend considerable Capital to get our systems improved in functionality and cost effectiveness. The meeting is a chance to personally get to know the key players on the Board. You have the opportunity to interrogate them an put yourself in a position to judge their capability and intentions. They have the obligation to signal their intentions and answer any questions or criticisms you may have formed from imperfect knowledge. The flight from Goulburn either inland or the very scenic route via V1 is worth doing whether you attend the meeting or not.

So, who is coming to Cessnock for the General Meeting? Of course, it is my intention to attend and would be happy to facilitate the visit of those coming from outside of the Hunter Valley. YCNK is a a good airport with some good facilities. Bring your partner and make a weekend of it in the Wineries. The Crown Plaza http://www.crowneplaza.com/hotels/gb/en/lovedale/ntlhv/hoteldetail is across the road from the Airport and there are endless accommodation and restaurant opportunities. The Hunter Recreational Flying Club is holding its monthly meeting on Sunday morning (11:00) and that's followed by a BBQ from about 12 noon onwards.

I've been told that if there were a Special Resolution to be voted on the entire Board would turn up. There are no SRs on the Agenda for this GM. Getting access to postal voting for the upcoming re-write of the Constitution could be a be a good reason to move our Incorporation from ACT to NSW. Don't have to move the Office to Queanbeyan, just nominate an address in Queanbeyan - could be an accountant's or lawyer's office. The Public Officer could nominally be an Accountant or Lawyer from that Office as long as they reside in NSW. I was once told that you could petition the ACT Government agency that looks after Incorporated Associations to have the provision for postal (snail or electronic) voting on Special Resolutions included in our Constitution but I can't see how that would work without a change to the ACT Act. To my understanding, the Board has met all its obligations under the Constitution with regard to the General Meeting to be held at Cessnock. I'd be interested to hear of any specific breach you have identified. I agree. As I hear it that is what happened. Andy has given a good explanation of the practicality and cost effectiveness of this approach. The original reason for getting a second scheduled General Meeting into the Constitution was because a lot of members believed the Board at that time was out of control and calling an extraordinary general meeting requires a huge effort for members to achieve. That Board was not abiding by the Constitution in a number of areas and their financial management was seen to be missing in action. Having a second GM was intended to speed up the process of reform of the Constitution by having two opportunities each year to make the changes needed. Having the Meeting at NATFLY was intended to give the maximum number of Members the opportunity to attend a General Meeting. Natfly was the one time/place where the greatest number of members gathered each year. There is no secret that the aim was to then switch the AGM to Natfly and in fact I put a series of Special Resolutions to achieve that but it was quite complex and failed to achieve the testing 75% majority vote mainly because the amendments were complex and not explained well enough for voters to understand them. They were buried in our longest ever AGM and suffered from the fatigue of those in attendance. I think most would agree that if you want to get the best attendance at an AGM then the Annual Fly-in is the best place to achieve that. Conversely, having the AGM in Canberra will almost certainly ensure the lowest possible attendance - unless there is a genuine emergency as there was in February 2013 at the Queanbeyan Extraordinary General Meeting. The practice of moving the General Meetings around has proved to be a useful compromise. Even though attendances are not high it does spread the opportunity to attend more fairly.

Can't imagine why but, as to where, the Artillery Corps were thought to have more than their fair share and there was fair amount of uncertainty about the Tankies too with their formal stretch trousers and their gay berets.

Not strictly on thread but I saw a program on the ABC last night "How we got to here" or something similar. They were looking at Time and the establishment of the system we have now with UTC. We got a brief look inside the Tower of London or more correctly, the Tower of Heathrow and I was surprised ad delighted to see it was much more automated (computerised) and use friendly than the old system of tiles being moved around by hand. I have no idea which is the better system but hopefully somebody has finally come up with an advance over the old manual system. I can see the practical reliability of the tiles and they do seem to have had a good safety record but it does look like a process that could have been used effectively to control chariot traffic on the Via Appia.

A mate of mine was always trotting out those wonderful Aussie similes like "Dry as a Pommie's towel" and "Full as a State High School" and "Flat out as a lizard drinking". A shame we don't hear those any more. PC certainly killed off quite a few.

I'm with you on that dsam, I generally give restricted airspace a wide berth but in some places there is no practical alternative. As you probably know, Class C and D airspace are inactive outside tower hours. One place that looks tricky to get past is Nowra. I haven't tried it yet but may need to get from Moruya past Nowra to Victor 1. I need to research it but I had heard the restricted areas are inactive on weekends. Anyone know for sure? I'll have a look this weekend and see. If it were up to me, I'd move the airbases inland to places like Tamworth an Wagga. Crazy to have them within shelling distance of the coast and they'd be much more cost effective if inland. I know Nowra is/was the base for the fleet air arm but do we even have one of those any more?

Thanks Rhys and Nobody. I avoid NAIPS as much as possible but it looks like they've made some steps forwards since I last looked. I usually grab the info out of the OzRunways hook to NAIPS which is quick and convenient and gives the info but not as pretty as this. Still not the most user friendly way of presenting the data but then so very little to do with ASA or CASA ever is. They all need to be taken round the back of the shed and beaten severely with an Oxford English Dictionary - and not the Concise version!

I'd dearly like to see a much better system for allocating and de-allocating airspace to the military. The amount of airspace that they've gobbled up would make you think we are in a state of war and under attack from foreign powers. The other thing I'd like to see (in my dreams) is a better way of knowing when Restricted airspace is active or not active. Notams are not the easiest things to read when you don't do it every day. A simple website would be vastly better. Input the R numbers and get instant feedback on their status and likely activation or deactivation. I can't complain a lot about non-military restricted airspace . . . but I will. Especially Coffs Harbour and Williamtown that force us to fly into areas that are not safe. There are more civil flights into and out of Willy but not that many military ones. All the same the traffic is not that hectic that it would be unsafe to fly up Stockton Beach at 500ft. All it would require is for the military not to fly below 1,000 ft. I live on Newcastle beach and often see aircraft below the cliff tops. For the last couple of days a C130 has been flying by low enough to perve on the topless bathers.

Incidentally, there is no longer a requirement for Board Resolutions passed in electronic meetings to be ratified in a face-to-face meeting. They are binding from the instant they are voted until they are rescinded or lapse according to the original Resolution.

Rule 14B (ii) obliges the Secretary to: "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". It does not say Board Resolutions in face to face meetings, it says ALL. The only way that the Board can make a decision binding on themselves and the CEO, his staff and the members is a Board Resolution. The Constitution provided for Resolutions to be passed either at face-to-face meetings or by electronic meetings. Rule 18 (ii) "Board meetings other than those referred to in sub-section (i) above may be conducted by electronic means." A Board Resolution is a Board Resolution is a Board Resolution. Not to publish as required would put the Secretary in breach of the Constitution.

We put an amendment into the Constitution that requires the Board to report Resolutions and who voted for what in the Members Only section of the RA-Aus website. Any member who wants to know what Board decisions have been taken can just go and have a look.

Rhys, my argument is that if you were starting an Association with a Board of 5 or 7 you would not create an Executive. All members of the Board can be consulted and have their say and vote when required via the Board Forum. They do not need to meet face to face to pass a Board Resolution. Board level decisions do not need to be made everyday. The Board does not operate tactically but strategically. The CEO is there to make decisions on a day to day basis under policy guidelines established by the Board. The President's role is to communicate the Board's will and direction to the CEO for the CEO to execute. The function of the Secretary does not need to be done by a Board Member. A member of the Board could be given the role of keeping an eye on Secretarial matters and compliance with the Constitution but actually doing Secretarial things like sending out Notices etc is an administrative task carried out by the CEO's administrative staff. The work of the Treasurer is done largely by the administrative staff under the guidance and control of the CEO. Again, there is an advantage in having a Boar Member nominated as the "Finance Director" (Treasurer is so Knights of the Round Table). The Finance Director looks more closely at the reports prepared by the CEO and his staff and develops an assurance that they are OK to be submitted to the Board for their review and final approval. The Executive may have been useful 30 years ago with the 13 members spread across the Continent and communications by means of tin cans connected by string but is just not needed with a smaller Board and in fact is deleterious to all Board members being properly involved and committed. That was an oblique way of saying that having a smaller Board elected from *multiple* regions would not work. Have just one Region, Australia and you can achieve the important democratic principle of one vote one value. It has a side benefit of allowing the most talented people to be on the Board rather the the people with just the right Post Code. How can you elect 5, 7 or 8 Board Members using Regions and not end up with some members having vastly more value for their vote than others? With 13 Board Members you can at least make an attempt at one vote one value although that has not been done with the current distribution of Board Members to regions. Once a Board Member is elected they are required to act in the best interests of ALL members not just those from the Region that elected them. To do otherwise is a breach of both the RA-Aus Constitution and Corporations Law. I originally set out in 2012 with a small sub-committee to re-write the Constitution from scratch but that project was frustrated by a Board hostile to change. Since then, I've put up around 25 piece-meal amendments to the Constitution. Only a few were not passed - mostly ones that affected Board privilege and were thus not supported by the Board. The amendments were at the time, urgently needed to address a poorly performing Board particularly in the area of communicating with members. We don't need more Constitution reform by fiddling at the edges. We need to get the whole document re-written, in Plain English, and get it right in one go. My belief is that if it has the unanimous support of the Board it will get the 75% majority of those who vote in person or by proxy.

Some brilliant Roads there, Nev. Had some great days on those, particularly up through Gingers Creek on the Wauchope - Walcha run. May have even exceeded the speed limit but not sure as I didn't have time to look at the speedo ;-)