timb

"because the locals are sick and tired of ultralights (and others) not paying landing fees or lying about who they are" And there you have it in a nutshell BTW Kasper, Avdata were acting as agents for the airports in question. If you want to hide behind the privacy screen I suggest you don't go on to other people's property. We tried the Honesty Box - all it contained were cobwebs There are plenty of organisations that can access your motor vehicle rego details.

Kasper if someone with a legal right needs to know the address of my aircraft then they will have access through the RAAus. Doesn't cut it AUF/RAAus have history here - refusing to provide reg. details eg Avdata were contracted by many airports in the 90/00's to collect landing fees but requests for information were rarely if ever responded to.

I disagree Keith In my experiences with the AUF a sizeable number of aircraft owners would have formed a lynch party & marched on Canberra if the register had been made public. Whether to hide the aircraft from ex-wives, creditors, local authorities or airfield operators, no matter If you want to have the privileges of airspace & airfield access, there are corresponding responsibilities

The old "privacy at all costs" mentality is really coming home to roost Make the register available & watch all the airfields let you in again if you want to hide your identity why should anyone let you access their facilities?

Signed

And just what do you mean by this Keith? Miles away from you? NQ is a big place Perhaps this "local" bias shows a damn good reason to dispense with regionallly allocated Board members Nothing against Frank by the way

Jim CASR 2005 exempts the aircraft being placed on the VH register if: (b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual. I think from memory (without actually reading it) that the RAAus Ops Manual requires the aircraft to be "registered" under the RAAus system Also, and I forget the timing, but at some point in the past the definition of "Australian aircraft" was amended to include those on the then-AUF register

Might pay to check if any road closures affect your planned itinerary: http://www.cessnock.nsw.gov.au/community/closures

Well the press was half right - it was a Cessna...

Sorry Rhysmcc but the ACT Associations Act & Regs do not prevent postal voting. The Model Rules require the voting to be done at the AGM, but as I stated earlier, your own constitution & rules overrides.

After reading this & other threads re the constitution, I am still wondering at some of the debates. Firstly, why are there references to the "ACT model rules" not allowing such things as postal voting etc? The Model Rules are the bare minimum, ie those that apply in the absence of other rules written into a particular constitution, eg if you want to have postal votes, write it in the constitution & it overrides the model rules. The only thing that must be in all not-for-profit constitutions is reference to individual members not benefiting in the event of wind-up. Secondly, you don't have an Acting Public Officer. The Public Officer can delegate while on leave, but remains the Public Officer until replaced. Andy is correct in that you can't introduce a new constitution bit-by bit, as there are guaranteed to be unintended conflicts betwixt new and old.

In the earlier days (here I go again nurse) the main reason given by the members for not publishing details of the aircraft registry was that they didn't want the ex-wife or (soon to be ex) wife to know that they had the aircraft in the first place, or to keep it well out of the line of fire of divorce settlements.

For a little bit of history, the magazine in the AUF days was required as part of the CAA/CASA memorandum, as a vehicle for communicating necessary safety information to members ("Airworthiness Directives" & such), and for distribution of membership information such as notification of General Meetings & Motions on Notice. As each member received a copy it was deemed to satisfy the legal requirements of "Notice by Post to Each Member" or some such. This of course was in the pre-internet days, and the magazine was indeed edited in-house. The decision was made in about 95/96 to put the magazine out to an external editor.

Ref the Recreational Pilot Licence. It was never intended to replace or come into conflict with the RAAus Pilot Certificate. The RPL does NOT entitle the holder to fly an RAAus-registered aircraft anymore then a PPL does - the only way to legally pilot an RAAus aircraft is to hold an RAAus Pilot Certificate. It is not new by any means and came about as a result of GA organisations' (yes Nev, the SAAA being one of them) requests for an avenue for continued GA flying when a Class 2 failure occurred. Nothing to do with RAAus at all, except arguing to the precedent set by RAAus' medical standards not causing all their aircraft to fall out of the air due to pilot incapacitation. It went to the Flying Ops subcommittee of the Regulatory Review Panel (you know, the one that's now nearing 30 years of quickly & simply rewriting the rules) and was near introduction in 2007. However, as is now the norm with new CASA regs, it got swept up into the Part 61 suite rewrite which is why it is only now surfacing. And as all things designed by committee, it does not achieve what its initial proponents set out to do. The "Drivers Licence with extra conditions" is now more onerous in places than a Class 2, and can be marked "Review by CASA" - the stamp of doom.

Don Just my 2 bob's worth but the Notice of the AGM must include ALL motions to be determined at the meeting. Motions from the floor or proposed AFTER the date of the Notice cannot be accepted.