Jim McDowall

Too late Bruce, it all happened 30+ years ago. We are just experiencing the fruits of our collective inaction now.

The Cavalier was an interesting development of the Mustang ultimately under the stewardship of Piper. See Piper PA-48 Enforcer - Wikipedia

When applied to CASA these terms are oxymorons

Getting back to the elections I read the candidates profiles last night. Apart from the incumbent, the unknown candidates do not: say how long they have been RAA members if they have a RPC outline their less than 600kg flying experience. My initial impression is that they have been "parachuted in". The question would be by whom and why? From the length of their bios it would seem that they are well equipped for the corporate world but what experience of the RAA world, homebuilding and attachment to the community that is RAA do they have?

With lots of white space!

Hi Turbs, can you please summarise those things which haven't been done or direct us to the post?

Which has been my point about CASR 149 that I have been hammering on about for years.

CASA is/has done exactly that. CASR 149 requires SAAO's to submit their expositions for approval. These expositions include all their policies. RAA's recent newsletter discloses that CASA has required changes to the discipline policy. IMHO if CASA approves something, then they own it as much as the SAAO. Part 149 is really CASA regulation by proxy.

The problem is that members are only members in order to comply with the law. If and when the "bad members" are actually bad or simply pains in the ass is sufficient to deny them compliance with the AVIATION law then the door is open to vindictive, unsubstantiated behaviour to enable the expulsion of a member. It is a different matter if the issue is NOT aviation related, but in an organisation in which members have consistently displayed their apathy it is hard to see how a "bad member" situation could arise. When does open discourse about the management or other get to the situation where "the organisation has been brought into disrepute" for example? In-fighting in this type of organisation is part of the internal politics. If the so called "bad member"'s behaviour is aviation related it should be CASA who removes his flying privileges, not a private organisation who is concerned about its reputation. Having lost those privileges, continued membership will probably no be an option for the member as there is no reason to be a member. In any event, the disciplinary document, seeks to deny human rights such as the right to silence, and consequently the rule against self incrimination. These rules apply to civil as well as criminal arenas. CASA should refuse to approve the document whilst the offensive policies form part of the document.

I'm confused by the foregoing conflicting statements. Oppression of members by an association run by an iron ring of not uncommon. Trouble is most of the oppressed just move on. Those who seek assistance are forced to fund legal expenses even when there are blatant breaches of the law. Breaches of the law should be prosecuted by the State, and if it is inconvenient for the regulators to administer the law then amend the law or abolish it all together. Turbs, it appears as though you have always been on the inner circle of well run associations and perhaps it would be wise to consider what happens when an association, or similar, ceases to be run for the benefit of members, or in someways contravenes, say, the human rights laws as the RAA members disciplinary policy does (cant remember the actual name of the policy).

Obviously you have never tried to get an association to play by its laws let alone the law. The bureaucrats approach is "go away and sort out the problem among yourselves". So individual members are forced to go to court to seek redress. Even then the courts are loath to interfere witness the High Court's decision in the case of John Setka and the Labor party.

There is a corollary in local government. The was a time when only property owners could vote in local government elections or get elected to councils. After decades of universal suffrage, one can only ask who does local government really serve, its corporate self or its residents?

Just like at least one member of the CASA board! A short term as GFA president and voile , invited onto the CASA board after participating in the ongoing slow death of gliding - hardly an indication of successful leadership in aviation!

If you want belt and braces don't fly aircraft register-able with RAAus. In fact, don't bother flying at all. Plenty of twin engine crashes prove that.

I think the issue really was the information was provided without express permission as required by the Privacy Act to which RAA is subject. As it is subject to the Privacy Act its defence in any court action would be it cannot provide the data by law. As to the idea that RAA aircraft maybe banned or even wheel clamped at airports is imaginable, however RAA aircraft probably avoid those airports in the main for other reasons. Also, does the legislation provide for such discrimination at Part 139 airports?

In my experience the people who gain most from these sorts of claims are the legal profession especially those who embark on "no win - no fee" claims. No win no fee should be banned. The rule should be full fee or pro-bono. On the matter of fees, the use of "scale fees" is anti-competitive and leads to bill padding without performance.

Wouldn't it be more practical to have a glider endorsement on an RAA certificate. Afterall, I can get a towing endorsement on a RAA aircraft. One membership fee, no club fees, no state association fee. If you closely examine the exemptions of 95.4 you are not really exempted from anything different than RAA except for ridge soaring and winch launches.

Even at the current death rate the number of deaths this year from COVID and influenza will probably struggle to surpass last years deaths from influenza. Economic historians will discuss this current world wide destruction of economies for decades to come and wonder why we embarked on such a crazy path. I am OK with sealing borders if it means sealing them, not creating all sorts of exemptions without rigorous policing to ensure compliance. But to close down an entire economy - the CHO's, CMO's etc have no idea of what they have really done to tens of thousands of small (and large businesses). Our banking system is so dependent on mortgage funding that an Australia wide housing price slump may threaten the viability of the system. Remember most small businesses are funded on the back of mortgages on the owners homes. Even though you may not be in arrears, you can be asked by the bank to top up their security or pay down the mortgage as they have re-valued their security downwards. This killed many small businesses in the recession we had to have in the early 1990's and banks are far less connected with the communities they service today. In today's environment even payout of redundancy payments to staff may be enough to force the closure of businesses that are consider re-structuring. These small businesses are the economic backbone of Australia. They will disappear silently and may not ever be replaced. Add to this the fact that perhaps too much of our economy has been reliant on the fools paradise of tourism and overseas students. When the children and grandchildren of the CHO and CMO's cant get employment or housing I hope that they reflect on the choices they have made in the last months and have the courage to admit that there may have been a better way.

And your point is?

You missed my point. If it cost $1million to run the GFA the cost per person if there are 4000 members is $250. If there are 1000 members the cost is $1000 per person. The GFA bears much of the responsibility for the decline in membership during which time RAAus has gone from zero to over 10,000 members so it is easy to see which model has more appeal in the recreation marketplace. A thinking person would probably conclude that their business model is not suited to the demands of the market.

Bruce have a look at GFA's Operations Advice Notice 1/20 (on their website) which mandates BFR's. That document requires among other things: Pre-Learning• All pilots must complete an online examination of flight rules (including airspace management), regulations, TEM, HF, and communications prior to undertaking the flying component of the review. Instructors will also be examined on inflight Instruction Technique. You had better hope that RAAus copy this BS.

The constant trickle of returning "Australians" who are fleeing nations with poor health systems and putting them up in metropolitan hotels was/is a disastrous approach. Why on earth didn't the Government persist with initial approach of using remote detention centres? Did NZ let everybody who thought they were a NZ citizen return? It is worth noting that Danistan has had the hardest approach to this event since it began. As an "expert" (epidemiologist) said yesterday maybe it is time to start treating people like adults instead of lecturing them like a demented schoolmaster.

Bruce what have you learn't from gliding. As the GFA collapses the remaining membership is increasingly regarded as a milch cow and to justify their continuing existence to CASA they keep making up new rules to de-incentivise members. Got your latest missive on BFR's from ASC yet?

EASA Safety Review has some data (EASA publishes Annual Safety Review (ASR) - 2020 | EASA ). Also EAA has a lot of analysis of experimental category (and other) accident data.

Shouldn't that be ANY aircraft?