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

 

 

Alan Middleton from Weipa that is miles away.

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.

 

 

The RPL (Restricted Pilot's Licence) has been on the boiler since 2005 to my knowledge. Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists here, but at no time was sidestepping or replacing RAAus mentioned in any of the discussions that I was involved in. It was being looked at as a relaxation of medical standards for PPL holders who were getting close to failing their Class 2 but could still meet some form of standard - Heavy Vehicle License conditions were the flavour of the month at that time. As it turns out, the conditions are now much more restrictive than originally envisaged, in much the same way that the whole Regulatory Reform process keeps turning in on itself, trying to reinvent the wheel to suit the definitive "Australian unique conditions".

 

If you have the choice between a conspiracy and a c*ck-up, the c*ck-up wins 99.9% of the time.

 

 

To clear up a bit of the history, early in 1994 Rod Birrell was the Operations Manager, and John XXX (RAAF Edinburgh) the Technical Manager. Both these positions were part-time and located away from the AUF office. The Board determined to make both these postions full time, based in the office, and Paul Middleton was selected as the Operations Manager, followed shortly after by Harry Walton as the Technical Manager. Board members at the time included Doug Muir, Ashton Gough, Howard Lowndes, Ian Shaughnessy, Tony Witlox John McCarron & Tanys, Phil Vabre.

 

 

Remember the old DCA/CAA airworthiness adage - "when the weight of the paperwork = the weight of the aircraft, then you're OK to fly"

 

 

DD, you forgot the third line

 

"Keep pulling the stick back and the houses get bigger again"

 

 

4 CASA do aviation safety, not aviation. So if we don't do it their way, we don't fly.

It used to be a standing joke in the old Dept days that some AWI's would rather an aircraft stayed grounded in the hangar as that way it couldn't crash, and they couldn't cop the blame for it crashing

 

 

Especially compared to the Bultaco and Montesa..............

 

 

It was awfully similar to us at the time....................

 

 

Bruce - the Ossa is a trials bike from the era of the Bultaco Sherpa T (Sammy Miller) and the Montesa Cota. Mick Andrews was world champion on the Ossa then defected to Yamaha to produce the first TY250 which was almost a straight lift of the Ossa.

 

 

Yes I do mean Thunderbolt - distraction rules

 

 

Back to bikes

 

Suzuki 185

 

Ossa 250 Mick Andrew Replica (anyone remember him?)

 

Yamaha XS750

 

and I just sold my BSA 650 Thunderbird