DonRamsay

Water/Glycol works better i.e. dissipates heat better.

Not really as it is closely related to considerations for people thinking of purchasing aircraft with an MTOW below 750 kg in the short term. Sorry, but I must strongly disagree. MTOW is the wrong parameter to overly restrict. It targets only two things - structural strength and fuel carrying capacity. It is nearly as silly as the FAA's crazy rule that somehow 120 KIAS at 5,000 ft is safe and 130 KIAS at 5,000 ft is unsafe. Who could tell the difference between those two speeds without an instrument to give them the answer? Targeting Stall is sensible but only in the landing configuration. Again the FAA went nuts and specified "clean" - who lands clean except those that have no flaps? 2 POB is a genuine risk minimiser and other things like multi engines, jets, etc help to keep sport piloting low complexity. Have a look at the strength versus size of some RV's to your lightly built Euro LSAs. Which makes for safer flying? Anyone who can build a structurally strong aircraft capable of seating two people and staying in the air for 3 hours with adequate fuel reserve under 450kg is yet to be born. The Euro VLA standard is very similar to the LSA standard but with an MTOW of 750 kg. VLA allows strong aircraft that can do the things LSA's do but with a decent engine and good fuel capacity. And they can do it with the same 45 knot stall requirement. And how's that working out? Now that RAAus has their act together, many SAAA flyers would be better off in a stable RAAus and bringing the SAAA building skill into RAAus would strengthen that aspect of RAAus. Night aerobatics in VMC is not my idea of "recreational" . . . but I'm just one person - each to his own. I agree. Quiet aircraft don't attract so many complaints and cheap fuel (electricity) is every aviator's dream come true.

What a couple of pessimists Haven't you heard that CASA is under new management? The U.K. is about to go to a genuine drivers licence std for PPL and below and the same idea has been approved through the US Congress. The whole world is recognising that with one pax, day VFR holding a car licence is enough. That has been the real success story of Sport Aviation. If an aircraft is on the RAAus register it is subject to the RAAus Tech Manual. Any time anyone tries to type the word LAME into the manual a big fist comes from behind the screen and punches the keyboard operator. If I don't need a LAME to service my EFI Rotax why would anyone need a LANE for a simple carb, air cooled engine? Don

Another ray of sunshine . . .

How else am I going to deliver the drugs?

Surely FT, you can see the downside to this?

Always a fun time around Camp David until the onion farmer turns up . Flying in for sure. Best of both worlds. I'll be better stocked this time to repay hospitality from last year. Beers on Don! Best way to organise a catch up is to nominate a time and a place. There is usually an OzRunways session on the Saturday - how about at the exit at the end of that session? Don

And now, from the dark side of the moon, some good news from FT: There'll be some cheap LSAs for anyone happy to fly inexpensively. On the other hand, tragically, Sling LSA, J230, etc., may be reclassified VLA by their manufacturers and fly up to their design MTOW. Those poor duffers will just have to put up with the higher fuel bills as they fly longer and more safely with big fuel reserves in their full tanks. Every cloud has a lead lining . . .

Over time, I see not-for-reward (NFR) aviation and commercial aviation (CA) as being the two classes of aviation. RA an GA in the NFR class will merge. Class 2 meds fo NFR will be replaced with a sensible Drivers Licence medical as is happening in the USA and UK. CA will be administered directly by CASA and NFR by one or more self-administering recreational aviation organisation. RAAus is currently the largest and has now become the most capable. I think that the alphabet of bodies GFA, HGFA, PPC, SAAA, etc., will continue as clubs/advocacy groups or chapters under a larger administrative umbrella. Once you might have reasonably said that that will never happen as it makes too much sense. However, if Boyd and Skidmore get there way it just might. Addendum: There will be endorsements or type recognition to cover things like Aeros, IFR, >1 pax, multi-engine, etc. with max MTOW up to 5,700 kg.

Pylon, Pretty close but not quite. Aircraft on the RAAus register do not require LAME and much of the GA regs. A 750kg MTOW aircraft on the RAAus register will come under RAAus rules not GA rules. There are aircraft on the RAAus reg now that have modern fuel injected engines, glass cockpits, turbo charging, inflight variable pitch props, capable of speeds of 160 knots (e.g. pipistrel Virus) auto pilot, ballistic parachutes and even retracts - enough to make some GA aircraft look pre war. And all that with <45 KIAS stall. Plan is to increase eventually from 600kg MTOW to 1,500 kg MTOW for RAAus Pilot Cert holders. Similarly, the MTOW for RAAus aircraft will be increased to 1,500 kg and thereby equating with the RPL The increases will be phased in with 750 kg initially and the full 1,500 kg when suitable arrangements are in place to manage the types and volumes of aircraft and pilots. A CTA endo will be available to RAAus Pilots who do the training and have a suitably equipped aircraft. I've never had any interest in aeros so won't comment further on that. So, in time there might be an RV or two register RAAus. Ave8rr - that answer your question?

If you can do aeros on an RPL you will be able to do aeros on a Rec Pilot Cert . . . in the not too distant future (with training and endo in an appropriate aircraft.) If you heard the interview with the CASA Chair Geoff Boyd after the last Tamworth meeting he was keen to see GA and RA move closer. Good for all. Don

The RAAus upgrade to 750kg will be with CASA by 30 June 2016. It is quite possible that we could have 750kg this calendar year.

Drop in to the Hunter Recreational Flying Club on the Western side of the airport and say hello. Pretty friendly bunch. Expect some big Westerly crosswinds over the Winter and Autumn!

The proxy counts were verified by an independent lawyer (not a firm with a link to RAAus). The count in the room was the best controlled I've ever seen. As you came in the door you were checked for financial membership. Members were given a voting card and non members got nothing but tea and bikkies afterwards. Those with proxies were given a card with numbers on them for Proxies directed in favour and against and no direction. Voting was very well controlled.

Ian, I and others no doubt appreciate your moderate moderation during May. It must have been so tempting at times. I knew I was sailing close to the wind but I thought asking somebody if they'd like Chees with that whine wasn't telling them to stop whining just trying to make them more comfortable while they were. I suppose I felt aggrieved that of all the crap being thrown about, that the only pot to attract moderation was a pretty soft jibe. Possibly, I'm too close to judge. Happy to accept the edit in deference to better manners all around. Don

Nev, I was for a long time an advocate of relocating the Office to an airfield. However, I've lightened up on that leaning as the excellent team of Michaels Monck and Linke are both tied to Canberra. I am certain we would not have been able to make as much progress as we have without being based in Canberra. Being able to establish a good working relationship with the CEO of CASA has been a real plus in setting up a way forwards. My argument used to be that being at an airfield would help the staff to be more focused on their reason for being - to help recreational aviators go flying. However, now I can't imagine how the focus of the office staff could be improved. They have come through a dreadful period with sense of humour intact and a willingness unmatched by any office I've worked in before. I definitely would now not be looking to disturb that for many years if ever. Don

Fair enough but I thought it better to respond with a joke than the vitriol aimed at me. Seems like a joke has to go but all the crap that's been thrown at me over the last 6 weeks was OK? Things like "just trying to entrench yourself on the Board and enwealthen yourself? Things that are aimed at personal integrity like that are what needs to go.

Keith, Edited - Direct attack against another user and against site rules - mod

The Building was purchased before my time but, iirc, the historical cost was about $500k. Its valuation must be stated in the books conservatively and is audited by external auditors each year as part of the production of the annual financial reports. At one time its valuation was increased by valuer to $1 million. Its value has come down since then. Fyshwick may not seem that salubrious as a residential area but that's not its niche. The redoubtable Canberra Times is located at the end of the street. There are some great takeaways and coffee shops handy to the office. What more could one want? A video rental outlet?

Just for the record . . . I originally campaigned to be elected to the Board because there was a distinct lack of finance management skills apparent on the Board and many of us were concerned about the state and management of RAAus finances. I came back to the Board after Jim Tatlock had been doing a very good job. With the employment of Michael Linke who has finance qualifications much of the role of Treasurer rightly went to him. He prepared the Budget, presented it to the Board for approval and executed the Board-approved budget. That is exactly how it should work. My motivation on coming back to the Board this time was to see the Constitutional Reform through that I had originally proposed to the Board back in 2012. With the reform agenda being voted through overwhelmingly by the members, and with a very strong team at Board level, I was very comfortable in offering my resignation from the Executive knowing that RAAus was in good shape and had an excellent future in front of it. So, I resigned from the Executive prior to the General Meeting last Saturday and the Board elected unanimously Barry Windle, a person whose skills and experience are very well suited to RAAus from here on in. I have huge regard for Barry and was very pleased to see him chosen for the Executive. It has been a long and arduous struggle to get the reforms done and I now want to get some flying done. This is a big country and it is going to take me some time to cover even some of it. Hope to meet up with quite a few of you at airports around the country. Thanks for the support and particularly the encouragement to keep going. Regards Don

ME get over it? I'm not the one bleating about it now - in fact all I've ever done on this issue is respond to statements that required clarification. Believe me I am very, very over it. After tonight I'll just let all the nonsense through to the keeper. Firstly, I reminded all the members who don't like it that they can do as I did and work to change it or, they can put up with it as it is. Secondly, I was not attempting to be complementary to people who despite an overwhelming vote in favour of the motion are still moaning and can't wait to be able to say "I told you so". I mean, how grown up is that? Do not put words in my "mouth" Kasper. I never said that you or anyone else should have done anything. I said that if you didn't agree you could use the democratic system and campaign for your view to be accepted and defeat the motion - you tried that and couldn't even get 25% of the voters to agree with you - that failed. I also said you could use the democratic system and put your own special resolution forward and then do the leg work required to get >75% of the members who vote to do whatever you think should happen. That's how a democracy works. That option is still open. Just because you put your view to the people who are moving the special resolution does not mean that they have to agree with you. You know it is possible for somebody to listen and still disagree. That in fact is exactly what happened. So, Kasper, perhaps it is time you got over it and let it go!

I'm certain he'd accept $3 mil. Who could decide but the people elected to set the CEO's salary?

I know I shouldn't but as this discussion is drawing to a close . . . Which means? Should I be offended? Well if that was your intent FT you just wasted a few electrons. I have zero respect for anything and everything you write and you are incapable on insulting me. It would be like being insulted by a 4 year old. Is it possible for you to come up with anything more ignorant and less logical? If you had actually ever read the Constitution or knew anything about the Incorporated Associations Act you would be well aware that it is the MEMBERS that have all the power not the Board. The Members in general meeting can sack the Board or change the Constitution. The Board cannot do either of those things. Please don't bother to answer my questions - take them as rhetorical.

Well, if it were that easy, why would we go to the trouble we've just been to? Let me suggest it was because we put our heads together, sought senior professional advice and, guess what, we took the advice and ACTED on it. If you had wanted to do it differently, or if you now want to do it differently, then I suggest you do what we did: we worked our butts off for 6 years, spend thousands of dollars of our own money, gain the support of at least 1,000 like-minded members and, Bob's your uncle! If you are not prepared to take ACTION then your opinion remains just that, your opinion. I happen to disagree.

Well, if they weren't asleep at the wheel, they might have noticed that RAAus went through its worst period in its entire existence between about 2010 and 2013. The depth of the trouble was commensurate with all the inattention of 90% of members who just wanted to go flying and were happy to have the running of their organisation go unsupervised. The cause of the loss of membership is clearly attributed to at least a decade of mismanagement leading up to the failed audits starting late in 2011 and running through out 2012. No, this can just accelerate the departure of members. How with any credibility could you put up the fees when people were having their aircraft grounded? Why would members not walk away when their aircraft were grounded for many months? Why would members be attracted to join RAAus when it looked to the casual observer it was headed for a winding-up? As it turned out RAAus had very substantial financial reserves and these have been prudently used to avoid substantial fee hikes while investing in modernisation of office systems. And, there was nobody on the Board or in management back then who knew anything about marketing. We now have a CEO with an MBA (Marketing) and a President with an MBA and we will soon have another member of staff with an MBA. Do you recall the old management dicta: "When you're up to your butt in alligators it is difficult to remember that you set out to drain the swamp."? Surely you can see that there are times when swamp draining is needed and there are times when you can with credibility market your organisation as something desirable? Let me assure you that 2012 - 14 were swamp draining time. 2014-16 were building capability time, 2016 and forwards is the right time to be growing RAAus. Frankly, I'm not sure that it is any of your business why I might choose to step down. No, I am sure it is none of your business.