Cloud Basher

Yes I plan on going

Thanks Ian, we still need a few more.

To my fellow RAAus members, Over the past few days an issue has played out on social media that should never have occurred in the first instance. The Board of Directors of the RAAus have presided over a situation in which our association has elected to register a trademark over a marketing slogan that is clearly, identifiably and unambiguously associated with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia as well as the international chapters of the same organisation and has been used by those organisations as early as 1949. The response online by both RAAus members and aviation industry participants has been clearly and overwhelming in stating that the decision to trademark this slogan was an enormous error of judgement. Unfortunately our board and management have elected to continue to assert the ownership of the trademark and ignore the overwhelming opinion of members for RAAus to surrender the trademark “Freedom to Fly”. This has bought the reputation of the RAAus into considerable disrepute and has significantly damaged the relationship between RAAus and our peer aviation organisations. The person or persons responsible must be held accountable. After all our Members Charter – which we all, including board and executive members, must subscribe to, states each member is accountable for their own actions. It is clear our organisation has no history with respect to the slogan “Freedom to Fly”. A search of the internet and RAAus website turns up only one reference to it, in the text under Member – Benefits. Furthermore our CEO’s explanation regarding the purported reasoning’s does not hold water and is contradictory in those supposed reasoning. In short the explanation is an excuse in an attempt to avoid responsibility and paint altruistic explanation that it was done for the betterment of other non-profit aviation organisations. I remind the Board and executive management that RAAus is not here to do the work for other organisations. They have been around as long or longer than RAAus and have done ok by themselves, and I am sure their boards do not wish for RAAus to speak for them or take unilateral action on their behalf. As such I feel the board must be reminded that they are a membership organisation and must act in the best interests of its members. The RAAus constitution has been setup to allow members to exercise those membership rights and hold the board to account if it strays from the direction the majority of members desire. I am aware of numerous letters sent to the board, all of which state to the board to surrender the trademark in question. This combined with the overwhelming response on social media leads me to take the following action. I have attached a Notice to the board of RAAus with a call to convene a General Meeting pursuant to Clause 18.2 of the RAAus Constitution in order to consider two resolutions. I invite all members of RAAus who believe that our organisation should be entirely representative of the will and desire of our members and follow those directions. The notices are that; ss a member, that the continuance of the registration of the trademark is a waste of members resources to defend this position, and the person or persons responsible should be held to account. I would like to emphasise that the decision to take this action is not from malice, but rather from a position to send a message to all other aviation organisations that RAAus is a friendly organisation that can be trusted to not only look after its members but be a responsible member of the wider aviation community. Additionally it is to ensure RAAus member funds are not wasted through unnecessary legal entanglement. After all we are all friends of aviation and just want to enjoy our hobby and sport. What is required is for you to print the attachment, Fill in your name, member number (you are required to be a current financial member of RAAus), date and sign. Then scan the form and email it back to me at: [email protected] Additionally, I have attached a proxy voting form for the General Meeting, noting that not everyone would be able to attend the General Meeting. If you believe you would not be able to attend please also print out the proxy form, fill it in and nominate someone you know will be attending the meeting. This is important in order to ensure your vote on the resolutions are counted. Please do not alter the form in anyway, other than to sign, write your name, member number and date. We require a minimum of 100 financial RAAus members, eligible to vote, in order to call this General Meeting. I hope that our members care enough about their organisation, the direction it is taking and more widely, all of the aviation community in this country to take action and exercise their rights as members of our organisation and demand it spends members funds in areas that will help create a unified RAAus and aviation community for the benefit of RAAus members. Thank you. Dave Jardine RAAus member Notice to RAAus Board.pdf Recreational Aviation Australia Limited - Proxy Vote form.pdf Notice to RAAus Board.pdf Recreational Aviation Australia Limited - Proxy Vote form.pdf Notice to RAAus Board.pdf Recreational Aviation Australia Limited - Proxy Vote form.pdf

Oscar, I hate to say it but you are showing your ignorance of the use of the BRS in the Cirrus (and any other aircraft for that matter). I suggest having a look at the COPA site as it explains the rationale and thinking behind its use and when to pull it. It has got nothing to do with the " other aircraft routinely recover from using standard techniques". If you think there is a standard recovery technique from a spin (PARE) that works all the time in every aircraft I suggest you never get into a spin and perhaps fly the Cirrus as you are setting yourself up to be a statistic. There is no standardized spin recovery technique. Every aircraft can and usually is different, some of them markedly so. Your thinking is reminiscent of WWI where some generals said "don't give pilots parachutes because they could just bail out rather than fight the enemy and then fight to save the aircraft". Obviously this was untrue and pilots show time and again - even military pilots who have an ejection seat - that they will stay with the aircraft and try and recover it and become a statistic rather than stepping out at the appropriate time. The Cirrus teaches "if there is doubt about your ability to survive then you pull the chute". If you have an engine failure within gliding distance of a suitable airfield you make the decision to carry out a forced landing or use the chute. This is up to you, how you perceive the situation, your currency, your confidence, your skill level etc. is this not a good thing to have another options? As you can see this has zero to do with the aircraft and everything to do with the pilot. Let me give you an example. I am flying in company with my mate is his C182, both of us heading to Tassie. We both have a engine failure at the same time and are going to have to ditch. Which aircraft would you rather be in? Going back and reading your earlier posts you seem hung up that Cirrus did not have to demonstrate the aircraft could recover from a spin due to achieving an equivalent level of safety with the BRS. My answer to that is; so what? If the pilot has only ever been trained in incipient spin recovery it is unlikely he would know what to do anyway. There is zero requirement to train any pilots in spin recovery unless undertaking aerobatic training. If you enter a spin why would a manufacturer need to demonstrate an aeroplane is recoverable from a spin when the pilot is likely to not know what to do anyway! Aerobatic pilots - myself included - love spins but we are few and far between. Even those who have done an upset recovery course, if you don't regularly practice spins, they can very quickly become disorientating and it is entirely possible that the wrong control inputs would be use anyway. Ian sure Dave Pilkington on here can back this up with personal observations. Your bias is fairly typical of people who have never bothered to educate themselves about the Cirrus. It is a completely different beast to what you perceive and with pilots undergoing proper training on when and how to use the BRS, as the stats show, it is one of if not the safest GA aircraft out there. Cheers CB

Oscar, What are the basic faults of the aircraft? Cheers CB

Geez Oscar, I said I was nowhere near the reports. I am sure a bit of googlefu will turn it up for you, or go straight to the NTSB website. Self help and all. But you seem to be making a classical mistake. It has nothing to do with the aircraft, the aircraft is sound, inherently safe and extremely crashworthy, the crash rate has been shown with Cirrus it has everything to do with the pilots. Prior to 2011 pilots were not formally trained how and when to use the CAPS. Post 2011 when Cirrus implemented the training there has been a massive reaction in fatal accidents. The same thing happened with the Piper Malibu when it was released and it brought in standard lean of peak operations - something new to the generation then flying them - and pilots were not specifically trained in it, so it resulted in an abnormally high number of engine failures and thus the fatal accident rate went up. Once it was identified and people trained properly the accident rate went down. Nothing wrong with the engine or the airframe. One other factor is Cirrus aircraft are used for "hard IFR" verses a lot of other singles out there, so they face sometimes less than ideal weather more often than others, and the accident rate is still reducing. Sounds like you have it in for Cirrus aircraft. I have to admit, so did I until I actually looked at the latest statistics and then went through the Cirrus Standardised training. Maybe I drank too much Cirrus coolaid on that course, I do still prefer the C210 for sentimental reasons, but if I had a choice between the two, to put my family in it and go places, it would be the Cirrus SR22 every single time (well when I can afford one...). BTW the second link posted by Nobody gives you the data and also an explanation, citing a number of different rates depending on how the pie is sliced, but you can take from it that Cirrus is about 50% less than the GA fleet average rate, so it is, if not the safest, certainly one of the safest. Cheers CB

Yep was released earlier this year and quoted in the aviation rags. I think Cirrus is now just lower than c172 IIRC. massive turn around for them since 2012 when they introduced a new training methodology. There was also an article in Flying or Plane and Pilot, but not near those at the moment. Cheers CB

Robbo, Just looking back through some old posts and saw this. Did you / have you / are you still looking at an SR22? Noting Cirrus now have the lowest accident rate of any GA aircraft (through targeted training now) and they are an exceptional cross country machine. Where are you looking at putting it online? Cheers CB

Sorry Marty but ALL aircraft design is a compromise. I do agree that there are more compromises because it is one baseline fuselage with three designs. But your statement that "you can't design one airframe... And expect it to have the same performance..." Is based on 80's thinking and knowledge of airframe design. You statement about retrofitting an existing airframe for the stuff I mentioned is categorically incorrect. Individual sensors can certainly be retrofitted, multiple sensors can be retrofitted, but they would never achieve what the JSF does in terms of fusion of all of these capabilities within a stealth airframe. You seem hung up on one tiny portion of the operating envelope this aircraft is operating in. Do you not think that some smart people with much more knowledge of the operating requirements than you and I made the best possible compromises to achieve the best possible capabilities - as I said - some of which we are only now starting to understand what this thing is capable of. And to say "once you have fired your smart missiles and the bad guy is still coming" shows little to no understanding of the networked and fully linked battlespace these aircraft will operate in. I was hoping for an intelligent and cogent reply rather than simply using throw away lines to try and form an argument. Not necessarily your fault as you are simply regurgitating what the ABC and other media says and it is your only source of information. But I ask that you maintain a somewhat more open mind. Interestingly the aircraft has evolved, massively since the "ex-JSF test pilot" flew the aircraft and it was a dog. I do agree with him that initially it did not live up to its performance requirements. But the changes made now continue to add to the performance and capability. The aircraft he flew is not the JSF we have today and won't be the JSF we get delivered. Anyway we can go backwards and forwards until our fingers bleed from typing but in the end it matters nought what you and I think, only what our war fighters can get out of it and how it links in with our modernized, fully linked and networked military capabilities. Let me ask you this. Other than the C17, show me one major acquisition project in any arm of the Defence Force that has not had its naysayers and public floggings? In the end all these platforms have delivered the capability we wanted or more and the naysayers die off and look for the next horse to flog. Cheers CB

People need to get it out of their heads that this is "just" a Hornet replacement. It is far far more than that. It is a sensor, communications, intelligence, surveillance, weapons delivery platform as well as being a fighter aircraft. There is literally nothing like this thing either flying or on the drawing board in the Weast OR East (that we know about anyway). If the F22 is Gen 5, this thing is Gen 5.6 and has the ability for major upgrades as electonical thingies continue to evolve. So much so that Air Forces at this stage are only now developing the doctrine and how to use this platform. It has capabilities that no one has yet worked out how to fully use. What I find amusing is people say an F-16 or am SU-30 will kick its butt in a dog fight. Maybe it will, but you are missing the point if you think that is a serious concern. This thing is soooo much more than a fighter aircraft. Cheers CB

"I've heard..." I will just leave that there. Cheers CB

Maybe I have drunk too much JSF cool aid. The F35 will be a great platform. Its biggest hurdle is getting enough information out the to appease the populace that this weapons and sensor system really is worth the cost, noting that nearly all its capabilities are classified so we will never know its true capabilities. I look at this this way. It has bipartisan support in our parliament, and all the people who know more than me and will use this in their daily job, to a person, say "this thing will rock". So I am comfortable with that and treat most other comments as space fillers on a slow news day... Cheers CB

Thanks Yen. Will find own of these AP's. I assume you do so through SAAA as it is a VH experimental? Cheers CB

I am just trying to find out now the rule governing mounting cameras externally on experimental category aircraft. I believe it is simply case of making an entry in the AFM but as yet have not been able to confirm. Cheers CB

I forgot to add that quite obviously, I love spins. Those and vertical rolls are my favourite maneuvers. Spins, probably because it seems out of control but I know I have 100% control and vertical rolls because it is a great feeling when you get one exactly on axis and the aircraft keeps going straight up. But I certainly won't treat any spin casually:spot on:. (Not that that was Vans intent with that comment). Cheers CB