shags_j

Hi everyone I have sent in my list of concerns (basically the list here http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/draft-constitution-my-concerns.142735/ ) I received a reply from the CEO that i don't find satisfying. If any of the problems i portrayed are concerning to you then i urge you to email the CEO and your local representative. My biggest issue to date is the ability for the board to disallow membership for any reason they please without having to divulge it. Please read my concerns and read through the constitution and raise any concerns of your own. This is your chance. You won't be able to complain afterwards... When reading this please note how much freedom to act the directors have without any consequences. I for one will be working hard to get at least my rpl prior to this constitution so i can cancel my membership immediately if implemented in its current form. Cheers Shags

Sad loss for everyone. This has been a bad year so lets make next year a much safer one.

Omg i am shocked at this news. My sincere condolences to the family.

Aaajhhh

What do you mean company type people? Is he qualified?

I know I went on and on in another thread about this but it should be in this forum. I am not going to comment on all the clauses that I did before but a number of major points I think should be considered by all. 1. The whole board read this draft constitution before it was posted... Why then was there errors in the document referencing non existent clauses etc. This is actually very poor form and brings to light the quality of the firm preparing these documents. Either way we need the correct documents posted for member review. 2. The directors should not have the right to deny membership without a reason. Also if denied there needs to be a mediation to ensure it is not the directors and their self interest ( this is kind of reminiscent of an issue some people here had a few years ago) 3. Clauses 17.1 gives the company the ability to remove a member and a policy and procedure needs to be established per clause 17.2. I would like too see this policy before voting as i believe enforced mediation of requested by either party should be involved. 4. This may be me not understanding but if i read this correctly an applicant gains all the rights of a member while their application is being considered. I don't see where this renounces their voting rights however and that could be used to game the company. I hope that makes sense. 5. The chairman is able to choose to veto a members right to vote. I see no reason that this should be allowed. I think clause 30 should be rewritten. 6. Clause 60.3 needs further clarification for us lay people. I will formally forward this to my local member as well but this is for general discussion the meantime. Sorry fort any grammatical issues but this was all typed in my phone. Cheers Jason

Ok I've read the rest. A tonne of incorrect references to clauses gives me concern that this is a cut and page deal by a solicitor and really makes me question the quality of the advice received. I think the board should be insisting o.k. higher quality work. As a matter of fact i expect more from the board. Did no-one read this before publishing it? It is appalling!

My points on some of what is mentioned previously in this thread or the draft in general: - Just because there will be a structural change to the organisation (ie. Directors) does not mean we cannot have equal representation by states. I'm not a lawyer and haven't been an accountant for a number of years but if I'm not mistaken it can be in the constitution still to have Directors based on state who are not remunerated (so in essence would function similar to the existing board) but they would be operating under a limited liability protecting their personal assets (I have no problem with this). Note: Ever since attending the Jacobs Well AGM I have had concerns of the limit of our liability as members and the boards refusal at that time to monetise potential liabilities for "legal" reasons. For that reason I let me membership lapse at the time until they were resolved. The new structure would actually make me feel a lot safer as a member (shareholder). - Change to remove the ability of a Director to cancel membership application once the 30 day period is passed... Though I would like a very stringent and open process if an application is rejected so that all members are aware exactly why. Not some very vague and still secretive statement by the board. - The objectives of the company under clause 6 I think are right on. Notice that it does not include increase membership, enter into competition with other aviation bodies or associations. We are not about making profits but breaking even. - I don't find the points limiting directors from being representative of states to be compelling enough to do away with state based representation. I think my points re: directors above should be pertinent. Clause 14 therefore should be rewritten. I think if membership is disallowed there does need to be a reason (remember Ian from here a while back?) given to the applicant. Privacy unfortunately may limit reasoning given in a public forum however as members we should have the right to know if and how many applications are being rejected and under what conditions. To this end a list of conditions for the reason to reject applications should also be included in the constitution. Clause 17. If a limit to privilege or removal of a member is to occur due to disciplinary action, a third party mediator should be required by the constitution. Not some poor 18 year old who has made a mistake being hauled in front of the board and booted. Clause 30. I see no reason that the chairman should be able to veto a right to vote. Period. Clause 34.1 If we are to have representative based directors then of course 7 may not be enough... Although that is 1 per state/territory (kind of) Clause 36.1 Refers to clause 35.6... Of which there is no clause 35.6. Who did we pay to write this? Clause 36.4 - Again the mythical 35.6. Maybe I am missing something. Clause 36.6 - Refers to clause 37.7, which I believe may have absconded with clause 35.6 Clause 40.4 - I like this clause. I say that it should be the exception and we should only vote to pay a director under very very special circumstances (ie. they were hired on as a director due to some kind of expertise but I don't see a reason for this to happen). This is all I have got to atm. Will have a read of the rest of the clauses for my continued opinion.

I have been flying at Caboolture for Years. Yes i can get a good metal picture of the circuit before joining ( otherwise i may be a bit hesitant to join) but i would still call the ycab circuit crazy. It is the norm to have two or three lsa's with gliders, maybe the tigermoth, nanchang, gyros etc. It is crazy but also good fun.

Regarding why we say Day See Mal... See AIP Gen 3.4-15 4.10.1 Another interesting reference from that section is also the use of copled numbers in flight ID's. ie. Tecnam twelve thirtyfour (Tec1234) Gen 3.4-22 4.21.1

Aldo: Doug is Ian's any my Manager Once Removed. Will pass on your hello. Zoos: Coffs is a funny area due to the low LSALTS and the steps but I think there is some misunderstanding here. If you just lodge a flight plan and never call ATC then we will never activate your flight plan and won't be watching to make sure you follow it. You are VFR in G, you can track as you please. If you request flight following then we will be a little more active with ensuring you are following your plan. As for what we prefer, we will not be chasing you unless it looks like you will breach CTA. Of course if you want a clearance through the steps (and are eligible) that is quite a different situation. Don't forget anyone can call centre and ask for a traffic statement for the current situation. It is a snapshot only but can give you a little more situational awareness. In the Coffs area we are also watching to make sure you don't cut through the CTA steps which happens occasionally too but that is a separate issue. I do recommend anyone that ever spends time in Brisbane or Melbourne please organise a time to visit the centre. We may be able to get you in to listen on a sector and chat to the controllers so you can understand what is going on. If you want to visit Brisbane centre let me know and we will see what we can do to get you in. Be mindful we are on HIGH alert for security so would need some advance notice to organise. Pilot Hat: As a pilot I would be lodging a flight plan at every opportunity. It never hurts to have it in there, if you want to amend it you can call ATC and update them with any changes (you don't have to be ultra specific) and then if something happens to you the SAR guys will at least have a planned route they can start searching for you if something goes awry. Cheers, Shags

Cheers guys

We aren't issued Red Asics (we get grey). Last year they stopped giving out reds to PPLs (there was much anger) so I have to pay for one (grumble).

DrZoos: I wish I could say that sometimes

Hey Guys, Not sure if this is the right forum or not... Filling out the ASIC application form for RAAUS and don't know what the following fields are after? Organisation Name Type Organisation Type Thanks Shags P.S. This form is just making me really frickin angry about the whole ASIC deal... And that I have to fill two of these out every 2 years...

I can really understand the need for an English test. There are a couple of schools with students whose comprehension of English is tentative at best, and these guys passed the English test. But what is the test now? Is it written? Do we need to do an Aural test of some description or something? $200 for an English test is a joke and seems to be a school trying to get an extra $200 out of you. Perhaps I am wrong and there is a formal process that requires a CFI for $200 worth of his time but otherwise I would be a bit sus on this.

$200 for the English level 6 test? I thought this was always just have a chat to the CFI???

No conflict of interest in that article of course ;)

Woah Settle Petal. I am ATC but nothing I have said here (other than Coffs not closing for lunch anymore) has anything to do with my job. Like Ian said, I don't care if I am clearing something with numbers or a VH reg. I also as I said support RAAus having CTA Privilege. But how long can I wait for that. I wish I were in a position to assist in getting these endorsements through but I have neither the knowledge or skills to assist the board in this and I really do wish them well in their quest for these privileges. I am speaking from my own requirements on what I want to practice. My choice: get an RPL and fly from an aerodrome 15 mins from my house, or, maintain my RAAus, travel over an hour to Caboolture and if I want to go somewhere, plan around all CTA. Yes for me I am definitely better off changing to an RPL. Maybe I will maintain my RPC so I can fly tecnams etc. but for the moment I don't think that's for me. My role as a controller doesn't put me in a position to negotiate with anyone on RPC access to CTA. I put in a good word for RAAus pilots any chance I get and always keep a positive attitude towards RAAus. So I'm not sure what else I can do to help RAAus get CTA access.

First: coffs doesn't close for lunch. Second:just as a matter of practicality i will be converting to rpl as soon as possible solely due to cta access. If Raaus can't deliver t this then i have no choice. I know this isn't the fault of the board ( they have tried) but i will have no choice for cta access. In a lot of cases ( mine included) a limited transit access isn't enough.

That's not really a good safety brief (If someone does something stupid, we will see them and talk to them). Maybe I'm just getting crusty but that kind of thing is a bit rough. And does that mean then that RAAus doesn't get CTA privilege because we are a bunch of unregulated cowboys?

Don't forget some people will have been taught one way and may nto even know that another exists. I learnt to fly with QAIRTC (air cadets) and then in a GA school with an ex military CFI. I had only ever known oval circuits till I changed to an RA school. If I had of continued on in the former school through to CPL then I bet until I went to a GA company I never would have known any differently. Also an oval circuit does not immediately cut in front of someone flying a square. That is a just a rude pilot. If flown correctly it is almost the same dimensions as the square just a continuous circle. Keep in mind (as other on here have said) that some people flying square circuits seem to extend downwind into the next state.

Don't forget some people will have been taught one way and may nto even know that another exists. I learnt to fly with QAIRTC (air cadets) and then in a GA school with an ex military CFI. I had only ever known oval circuits till I changed to an RA school. If I had of continued on in the former school through to CPL then I bet until I went to a GA company I never would have known any differently. Also an oval circuit does not immediately cut in front of someone flying a square. That is a just a rude pilot. If flown correctly it is almost the same dimensions as the square just a continuous circle. Keep in mind (as other on here have said) that some people flying square circuits seem to extend downwind into the next state.

Just exactly why is change necessary... Because Dick piped up about it? If Dick asked for it then it's because he is being restricted for some reason... This whole argument is predicated on the supposition that; 1. "the US system is safer" - The article has no reference for this statement 2. The US system, if safer, would be relevant to our airspace 3. The US system offers greater information to pilots than what ATC currently supplies Reducing E down to 5,000 in my humble opinion doesn't really do anything. We have to separate the IFR for longer in and out of aerodromes, all VFR in radar coverage would have a transponder. Not really sure of any quantifiable benefit here. What lowering the level of E does do is restrict some of the clearances we can give as ATC. There are LSALT issues at 5,000 in that area. So what started all of this in the first place? Was there an incident? Was there a complaint by RPT?

I think the bit about female and indigenous employment numbers is an afterthought in that article. I would hazard a guess that the former two issues discussed were the main ones. And Dicks interest is in what Dick can and can't do. Not in safety.