DonRamsay

Thanks Kasper. I would add that the Notice of Meeting also has the Special Resolution as one, indivisible SR. The numbers were added in one exposition as a cross reference to the explanatory note.

Keith, Unless you are prepared to do the hard yards then you will never have a clear understanding. To vote NO because you don't have a clear understanding is a cop-out.

Very well put jetjr. Everyone suspecting malevolence and more regulation when what the Tech Manager is doing here is helping us to hang on to our most valued freedom. A few apologies would be good to see and some gratitude expressed for the great job Darren has been doing in digging us out of a deep hole that he had nothing to do with creating. And how about a few of the perpetually, negative and always suspicious posters on here giving RAAus the benefit of the doubt until you know the facts? This perpetual uninformed bagging of real people doing their level best wears pretty thin. Imagine how you would feel if people you didn't know, who hid behind pen names, who lack the full facts continually tell you what a crap job you are doing? Don

Col, what you say makes sense but has never been a feature of RAAus general meetings. Because of the difficulty of all 10,000 members being, practically, able to attend, no motion can be put other than those that were on the Notice of Meeting. To do otherwise would be unfair to those than cannot attend. I suppose you could have your proxy, who attended the previous meeting, vote for you on whether to accept the Minutes of the previous meeting but it has never been an issue before. The example you give would normally be handled as a question to the Chair and hard to see you ever being told you are out of order but I suppose it is possible. That makes good sense. You have to go to the current Constitution which defines the proxy form content (not the format). We might need to take some legal advice on how your good suggestions can be accommodated. Numbers were assigned to make the reference to the explanatory note easier to follow. I can see why that was done but I didn't like it. Regardless, the motion was put on the Notice paper and proxy forms as a single motion and, in the end, that is what matters. RAAus ceased using the Solicitor Runciman used a long time ago. I am told that RAAus paid for the legal advice and Runciman refused to refund even though he refused to allow the legal advice to be shown to the members. I have also been told that he left Australia. Appears to have ended up a bad debt, written off. Don

No, that's reserved for the Atheist Knowledge thread.

Third box, not "abstain" but "allow proxy holder to vote at their discretion". Not much use wasting the electrons to abstain, just don't vote.

Even more dismissive? Good to see you have FT's support - you must feel good about that.

If the ALP wins, it is possible there would be an electoral advantage to them to bin the Forsyth Report as if it were fully implemented quickly, the then opposition could claim the qudos. Lets hope that level of cynicism is not demonstrated.

Well, that was a bit dismissive Turbo. Not the usual analysis and searching logic I would expect from you. The way I put it is as the opposite end of the spectrum to the current regulation-obsessed CASA approach. Hyperbole aside, this sort of thinking is beyond the capacity of a CASA to do. All you are likely to get is, as you did, instant dismissal. To change CASA from its current straight jacket mentality to a genuine service organisation would require emptying the building, moving to a much smaller building and starting from scratch. I had a bit to do with the underground coal industry for a while. The only industry considered more dangerous at the time was timber cutting. The Coal Mines Regulation Act contained endless detailed regulation and it did not stop underground coal mines being extraordinarily dangerous places to work. People were being disabled or killed at terrible rate. What caused a big change for the better in the safety record had not one single thing to do with more or tighter regulation, it came from engineering study and design. Continuous mining machines with integrated roof bolters operated remotely from a safe distance underneath bolted and supported roof and the expansion of longwall operations made the work underground enormously less risky. The Act did change as well from insane detail like how thick the limestone dust had to be on the walls to something much closer to my global statement above. So, yes there needs to be some regulation but it needs to be at the system level not the lockwire level.

I think we're arguing in circles here. You call it RAAus regulation and I call it part of normal PPL training and qualification. Personally, I'd like to see most endos deleted other than Navs and Low Level/Rural. All the rest should be required for a Pilot Cert. with the possible exception of Radio for people who operate aircraft for which radio is impractical (is there such a thing?). How would RAAus know you have done an AFR (which covers you for BFR requirements) unless you told RAAus? Have you advised a CFI, the Ops Manager or CEO of what's wrong with the answers relating to scuba diving? I swallowed the HF exam and Suba theory without any other experience to doubt it. I'd like to know for myself and I'd very much like to make sure we are not spreading urban myths if that is what we are doing. Yes, funnily enough I did mean to add that. But I can tell you that no "good idea" gets past the Board without something akin to the Spanish Inquisition. If I can bore everybody for just a few moments longer, let me give you my theory on regulation - what works and what doesn't. Firstly, according to AOPA, what CASA does now has been proved over a period of 18 years to statistically make no difference to safety outcomes. Secondly, regulations have never stopped pilots running out of fuel but I think the CASA CAAP 234-1 probably has. Point is, good advice will be picked up by pilots because it is clearly good advice. My predictions is that stupid regulations like those proposed on fuel management to replace the CAAP will be ignored by ordinary pilots and will achieve nothing but bring CASA and their CASRs into disrepute. Thirdly, the sheer volume and complexity and legalese makes the CASRs all but unintelligible to the part-time pilot, both GA and RA. At least RA has a better chance with the more compact Ops Manual. So, Safety organisations like CASA improve safety of pilots, their passengers and the public by supporting education and training in how to balance the risks of aviation. Fining somebody $9,000 for not calling "MAYDAY" when their fuel reserve dropped below 45 mins even though they were in sight of an airport will just cause people to give up aviation forever. Compare the value of the safety sessions conducted by CASA's Teraya with yet another 32 pages of regulations? Lay down grand slam. So, what about RAAus and regulation? It is subservient to the huge raft of legislation drafted by CASA - is there any wonder it looks a bit like it? Under the current legislative framework, is there an alternative? If I ruled the world, I think I could get RAAus's (and non-commercial GA's) regulation's down to one sentence: "The Pilot in Command is to take all sensible precautions to ensure their flight is conducted and concluded safely". Penalty: Injury (possibly fatal), destruction of aircraft and other property and possible loss of insurance cover. Then, instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars and decades devising ways to fine pilots and maintainers, CASA could hire 500 enthusiastic aviations personnel who would spend their time, not in air conditioned offices in Canberra, but out and about at every airfield in Australia helping us to get it right.

All that is required is to clearly indicate your preference which is the same for the rules of the Australian Electoral Commission. Personally, I'd "tick" but I've seen crosses and other ways of indicating your preference. If you are in favour, make sure you email it in to [email protected] . . .

You don't need the L1 to be a pilot. L1 was a give away with the pilot cert whether you could tell the difference between a right handed and left handed screwdriver or not. Without an L1 you will be restricted in what maintenance you can do. With an L1 it is to me alarming what you can do . . . but that is the spirit of RAAus and I'm never going to campaign against it but I will continue to be selective about what aircraft I will accept a ride in.

To leave it up to your proxy to choose all you have to do is leave the form without ticks in either box. I agree a third box would have made this clearer. Don

Kasper, Some good points well made. I'll be getting a thorough briefing on this matter on Saturday and nothing that has been published to date will be in the final, approved V4 unless both a Board majority and CASA approve the document. But that day is drawing very close. Whether V4 is perfect or just a quantum leap over the current awful document is not a bad position to be in. And there will be a V4.1 There is just too much improvement on offer to delay much longer. I appreciate heads-up on all these things and will have them on my notepad at the Board Meeting. Wish me luck! Don p.s. I know, I know . . . it's not supposed to be about luck . . .

Ian, Good to see you back on deck and trust you had an enjoyable weekend pampering mothers. I have no argument with what you can do with your proxy. I wasn't disputing that and I'm not clear how you got to that understanding. Possibly it has to do with a directed proxy versus an open one? I could have made that clearer. I was urging members to use their proxy vote responsibly by making sure that if they give an open proxy to somebody who has done the research and formed a considered view then that is a good thing to do. To give your open proxy to somebody who has not canvassed the issues thoroughly would be, in my personal view, irresponsible. As you know, I post on here as an individual, not as a Board Member and have made it crystal clear what I think is best for the future of RAAus. All the contrary arguments I have seen carry no weight for me, personally, especially when measured against the benefits of the reforms. And anyone who was scared by my post needs to see a shrink and/or take a teaspoon of cement and harden up - especially if they want to run the gauntlet here. On the contrary, I was asking members to use their proxy wisely and responsibly and to not just give it away to the first person who asks for it. Don

Nong, Our endorsements do not represent more regulation than GA. Just called different things in GA like "type", etc. Show me a PPL who has not had to jump through a hoop for Radio, carrying passengers, Navs, NW/TW, etc. We just give them endorsement names. Can't see a problem there. HF is just as relevant to a RA as a GA pilot. Still the biggest cause of aviation fatalities by far. Nobody is ever going to apologise for requiring a knowledge of HF. CASA taking 18 years to not finish the CASRs definitely qualifies for introducing "changes much more slowly". And guess who drives what's in the Ops Manual? CASA.

If you can't be in Canberra on Saturday, you can give your open proxy to somebody you trust that you know has worked their way through the voluminous, complex and to the average pilot/maintainer, boring Acts of Parliament and constitutions and formed a considered view. That is a responsible exercise of your democratic right and responsibility to cast a vote. However, giving your proxy to somebody who has not done the work and has just got a "gut feeling", is not, to my way of thinking, a responsible use of your vote.

True, it didn't and you just may have noticed that I am very reluctant to get into arguments over the Tech Manual. While I have read the drafts and followed the changes I have certainly not been a leader in this area. That task on the Board is better suited to people like Trevor Bange. Yes and yes. There has been very considerable toing and froing between the Board and the Tech Dept. I've read through the V4 draft and followed the discussion and the revisions. There were some things I was not comfortable with, e.g. Form 121 and the Aircraft Condition Report. But I'm not going to tell Board Members like Trevor Bange how to suck eggs on any of the more technical policy stuff. The Board approved a version to go to CASA for their review and comments. That is not the end of the approval process. The Board is the ultimate approval authority and it treats the Tech and Ops Manuals as critical. Tom, like I said, I am not the person to argue the merits of technical questions like this. My personal rule is that if you never make mistakes you never need to have anything checked, ever. If I were building, I would want everything checked by an expert before that aspect is not able to be checked due to being obscured. But, that's my accounting background - belts and braces is hardly enough. However, I don't plan on inflicting my ultra-cautious approach on experienced builders. I'll leave that sort of judgement to the experts. We do have a principle that we hold dear in RAAus and that is that we should not have regulation for which GA does not have regulation. If I see that on the way through then I would be concerned and argue the point. Back in 2012 I backed a move to get rid of the ACR and thought we had been successful until CASA refused to approve a Tech Manual that did not have the ACR. You don't need to be a LAME to know that the ACR is unnecessary regulation. But, in the end, the 800 lb gorilla does have the muscle and we would be unrealistic to think we out rank them and can put in the Tech Manual whatever we feel like having in there. The Board also appreciates that once you get away from the major population centres L4s are pretty thin on the ground. The Board will have a session with Darren at the Board Meeting on 14th May and make a decision to approve and release v4.0 or require further amendment. If further amendment is required the amendments will have to be approved by CASA of course. Don

ad nauseam. I am happy to reiterate about what I said about Jared above and ask people on here to understand that you are only seeing one side of this matter on here. I hope that the Tech Dept. don't get into a discussion on line, in public, of one member's dispute with RAAus. There is a clear appeals process available to Kasper from Tech to CEO to the Board. My knowledge about this matter is not great. It is not my area of expertise and I'm happy to let the process work its way out and if it ends up at the Board then I will make sure I am fully aware of all aspects. Don

Tom, If you would like to know how much and with whom the consultation has been done, you'd get a better briefing from the Tech Manager.

Personally, I hope that we can increase the influence that members have and tap into the capability store that is our 10,000 members. Once we have a solid base under us that will be provided by the new Constitution, the ground-up rewrite of the Tech Manual as V4.0 and an update of the Ops Manual and the redevelopment of the Information Systems and introduction of a new SMS, RAus should be in a position to substantially increase member participation. The workload on everything that has been necessary to get us up to ground level has been urgent and truly exceptional in volume and complexity. To get it all done expeditiously, making up for decades of neglect, it has been necessary for the broad brush strokes and legal finer points to be a "given". Consultation has still been extensive and mostly aimed at putting members in a position where they understand the reforms and can make an informed choice. All RAAus members have had the opportunity at the last AGM and in print since Oct 2015 to to ask questions and request changes. From here on, we should be seen to be an organisation that on significant matters has a practical process for consulting members and incorporating good feedback into the solution. I've always like the concept, if not always the execution, of CASA's NPRMs. It is possible we could move in that direction but that will be for the Board and the Members to decide in future as it could be very resource hungry process. RAAus just doesn't have, and never will have, the CASA sized bureaucracy that such a process might require. But, if members want it, and want to pay for it in their annual fees and ask for it, it must happen. Always hard to see the silent, largely disinterested, vast majority of members being prepared to pay one cent more in members fees. Agree with all that Nev. One day you are going to stun me by saying something I can disagree with. Currently we have a deep pool of experienced aviators/maintainers with Trevor Bange, Ed Smith, Eugene Reid, Mike Apps and Rod Birrell. As to who the extra 4 on the new Board will be is of course up to the Members. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that whatever other skills they may bring, all candidates will always firstly be ordinary RAAus pilots and maintainers. The initial Director's job will be to make sure all the members have the info they should have to make an informed choice as to what the Board needs. Some may favour engineering, some commercial, some aviation operations. One reason for starting with an initial build up to 5 is to see what the election throws up. If we ended up heavy on management people and light on aviation ops and engineering people then the members would be given that analysis to do with what they choose. If the director who has extensive finance experience retires, then members should know that and then can weight their voting as they see fit. In the end, we need people on the Board who are there not for any concept of prestige or personal advantage but to contribute enthusiastically to guiding RAAus into the future. I prefer that they have broad-based experience. You are absolutely right Nev, if you need specialist assistance you hire it in don't depend on a Board Member. Don

Nev, Bill's idle speculation is utterly baseless and will have been seen to be like the claim "the sky is falling!!!" when V4.0 of the Tech Manual is released to all members, shortly. The trend now in RAAus is to push back hard against any attempt by CASA to impose restrictions or obligations that do not have a demonstrated risk management safety case and/or conflict with Skidmore's 10 point plan. I do understand why people like Bill can be so easily persuaded to expect the worst because of the performance of both CASA and RAAus in the past. But, as they say in investment circles, the past is not a guaranteed prediction of the future. I also expect that the doubters are very unlikely to accept my apparent optimism and will "believe it when they see it" for themselves. I have no problem with that approach.

This one is definitely a keeper. The real benefits of more than two years of swimming against the tide (CASA/SASAO) should materialise over the next 6 to 12 months. I think even the most mindless critics will be gob smacked about how much has been achieved.

We only see one side of this matter on here so be very careful of making judgements about a real person who, in my judgement is doing an outstanding job and, afaik, has the full support of a 13 member Board. He is by a nautical mile ( or two the ) the best qualified Tech Manager RAAus has ever had.

Hmmm . . . the definition of "ironic": advice from an owl about limiting nocturnal activity.