frank marriott

Outside 10nm/10minutes I would expect you to be on area not CTAF (or monitor both with suitable radio equipment).

Is the 13kts Xwind a typo?

If approx. 10% vote of the membership is considered "loud and clear" I guess your are right. Why the other 90% didn't bother to vote is another issue. Maybe more will get involved as a result but your guess is as good as mine. Surprising comments from members who had no idea or interest before are now commenting around airfields (at least locally). I even received an insulting email from a member who stood against me in the election I was successful in stating that it was poor that I resigned so early. He also voted for the change! I had to explain that he obviously didn't know what he voted for as all bar 3 were stood down (sacked) in the change that he supported. That is what we are dealing with.

Aldo Your views on consultative management in member based organisations differ to such an extent with mine that there is no point discussing, just accept we are on different sides of the line.

Whatever ones individual views on the change to RAA it is fair to say it has resulted in a serious split in the membership - which is not a healthy situation. People can push their for and against positions as much as they like, but I doubt it is a recoverable situation without a change in a couple of personalities. A consultative approach with a members organisation is a must to avoid gaining the disapproval status similar to that enjoyed by CASA.

Bruce Don't get confused with over regulation from CASA when some of the changes in the manuals come from "internal" NOT imposed upon us. We have a problem IMO with what is being imposed by a section of RAA (NOT CASA) - Maybe sweetheart deals under the counter by some who are TOO close to particular individuals for a personal gain but that is what is being supported by members voting so the ultimate looser is RAA and its members - My belief is members need to give serious consideration to what direction they want RAA as an organisation to go. My personal opinion is worth nothing, but members should look closely and sort the wheat from the chaff and decide what they want RAA to represent over the next few years. Serious consideration is required, including pilots not reading individual opinions on this site, and they can form their own opinions - many I speak to are amazed when updated with the current mini CASA style.

Without wanting to get into a debate about the process I can assure you I had input (with support) on certain matters during the "short" time I spent on the board but it was submitted in its original form without amendment.(the actual vote on approval is available on the RAAweb site - far from unaminously ? I even received a phone call from Michael Link stating that this will be the case and any amendments can be made during the 3 or 6 months phase in period (after it was submitted to CASA) I asked myself "why was I putting in hours of reading and making suggestions if it was to be ignore?". A major point in my decision not to stand for re-election, I didn't stand in the first place to be a rubber stamp for "a few". It is all recorded on the internal communications. I refuse to go through the BS again as if I couldn't achieve change whilst a board member I am certainly not going to waste my time now. I was successful (with support of other directors) in changing a couple of matters in the ops manual but ZERO in the tech manual - work out for yourself what is going on there! - the only guarantee is I will not waste any more of my time until a change in process occurs (if ever before the RAA as we know it ceases to exist). If you have any doubt ask any one that was on the board prior to the changeover. I doubt anyone would challenge the facts (I naturally kept copies for my own reference/proof if required) Ask yourself why was the board planned to be reduced to 5 and only increased to the minimum of 7 by a motion from the outgoing board - it could be considered to get rid of other opinions, but make up your own mind on that - bottom line I am now an observer, not a happy one, but certainly NO interest I wasting any more of my time.

Oscar Although over the previous years I have agreed with many your posts I am afraid with this last one on the change of structure etc of RAA we are not in the same book, let alone on the same page. No point in arguing the details, it would achieve nothing, suffice to say that there is a lot of opinion contrary to yours and not for the stated reasons. Whether those opinions end up as votes as time goes by - your guess is as good as mine - certainly a lot of unhappy people around, but that's life.

It depends on what people are using as to how much use a system is I suppose. In my "local" area most RAA operators use OzRunways (may be some Avplan just I am not aware of them). Most RAA aircraft here do not have/use transponders let alone ADSB, (only 2 with ADSB that I am aware of) so ADSB receivers are of limited use in the lower levels that most RAA operations are occurring in. Then of course others don't use any. Certainly useful, but far from a total picture and then there is one (VH) locally that doesn't have a radio either.

If that's what you believe David, no worries, I wouldn't attempt to change your's or anyone else's opinion. It is accepted practice to get various views, consider them, and make the best decision. Robust debate provides the best results - this is what's happening and you should agree doesn't go down with me. Opinions by individuals who believe they have absolute knowledge and resort to insulting language (internal matters) does not produce the best results for the organisation (I have copies from my short term). I have NO problems with the members vote and the outcome, I just have serious worries with the current approach - I honestly hope the faithful believers are correct, I just don't agree. Anyway enough from me I will just go back to flying aeroplanes and observe what the current approach delivers (I do regret registering LSA now, but we all live and learn).

No comment on any individual. - Trevor in not a new member just re-elected. I.e. Nothing new with him.

The reality of the NEW board is: 6 less members representatives 1 new board member The only real difference is 4 can run with whatever direction they choose with only 3 to give opposing views. I accept some like this idea (personally I think it is dangerous) but that was what 800 voted for so we can only wait and see who is correct. - like it or not that was the change supported by the majority who voted. Aviation knowledge and experience was activally opposed in the lead up to the general meeting and obviously gained a fair amount of support for whatever reason.

Maybe a "don't agree" . Many opinions differ on many subjects and indicating that one does not agree is not insulting or attacking the poster but just indicating that it not necessarily a universally held view.

So it wasn't you at Mosman obviously Frank. I know the paper said microlight and a photo of a trike, but I have little faith in press descriptions of any small aircraft.

I real terms - replace 6 area reps (who elected not to stand under the new set up) with one new person. Hardly the sweeping change forecast by the pro change set - luckily. Improvement? Well that is up to each individual to decide for themselves.

I think Nev has hit the nail on the head. There are many pilots I am happy to fly congested circuits (even formation although less) with and there are some I give "plenty of room" and has nothing to do with age - "Attitude" is one of the biggest considerations followed by experience (and not just time flying in circles) - the loud mouth is normally a given and the excessive use of a radio.

What is often not considered is the turbulence in a lot of IMC and it effect on small aircraft - basic computer type simulators can lead to unrealistic expectations (& reliance on autopilots).

I have zero interest in debating the matter any longer, just read section 4.2.4 - 6 par 17 to 21, and then 12.4 of version 4 and make up your own mind if they are the same.

Wheels on the top is not original, saw a Pitts ( or similar aircraft) at Oshkosh in the 80s or 90s doing this. An interesting exercise was the pilot getting into the aircraft when parked in the inverted position - used a winch arrangement.

Unless it is a more advanced system then I have come across, an inflight adjustable does just that i.e adjusts the pitch as commanded as opposed to a CSU. There may be more advanced systems that I have not seen to which you may be referring?

On the lighter side, when I was doing my CIR after levelling out in cruise the instructor said you can take the hood off for a while before the upcoming NDB approach - only to find on removing the hood that we were inside 8/8. I said funny to which I only received an unrepeatable response.

From Darren, I again disagreed but everyone must requalify in the next 6 months. I quote "don't have records of previous courses". Believe that or not as you choose.

Yes I agree BUT have a look at 12.4 Tech Manual ref instruments and guess where that came from - BLOODY RAA. Instrumentation has been certified without problems since the CAO 95.55 exemptions. Nothing has changed (including CTA) but "OUR" RAA has decided it is a good idea!! (Lack of understanding of non TSOed instruments probably). I could go on but no point, what's done is done, until there is a groundswell for change, just cop it. As I said I am over it all.

I agree with you on that, just not where some of the additions and removals are coming from, and I spent a few months in debates about some of these issues, and they were not mandated from external authorities.