frank marriott

Interesting for 2 reasons: 1. The AH indicates a decent although the VSI hasen't caught up? 2. "Cruise speed" which is 10kts into the yellow (i.e. Smooth air) I have no arguement with it being fast, obviously is, but "crusing IAS speed" 10kts in the yellow - I have reservations.

This and the other (insulting) post by Don pretty much sums up the approach by at least some - basically I am right and if you don't agree you are both uneducated and dumb. Communication skills? I guess the members will decide - interesting times to say the least! I am insulted for one.

"if you had ever had to work with a Board of 13 you would appreciate how inefficient thatis" Actually a 12 and a 6. So both.

Great ANDY, I also have had dealings with ASIC and wonderful operations of that commission are not held as high by all as you hold them (we have different views, so just leave it at that).

"but unless we change our incorporation there is nothing to say we wont rinse and repeat and find ourselves where we were again...." Or with a 4 member majority board, the possibilities are endless. Careful consideration of what "you" want (ie. the individual member) and vote accordingly. Too late after to say that is not what I wanted. With such a major change, careful consideration is warranted and then express your opinion by voting according to "your" belief. Many changes proposed on a straight Yes/No vote.

I guess the question (apart from the legalities) do you think your standard of flying is suitable to take a pax - I would suggest that consolidation of what you have been taught might be worthwhile. Don't be in a hurry, plenty of time in the future (pax have a habit of continual questions, be happy first IMO without distractions)

AFAIK 3 blade prop not approved LSA (19?)

"to bring the board size to no less than five members?" I am glad at least some people are happy.

"MANDATORY" Fit one if you like but leave the rest of us alone - more bloody regulations!

Russ, kick in a boot full of rudder (i.e. unbalanced ) and you will achieve a different result in your 160.

Rotorcraft group? I wonder why this political thread is not where it belongs?

Thanks Sue, no worries just I didn't recognise the aircraft until I searched the rego and discovered it belonged to Warrick.

How long ago was the latest paint style? It had a camouflage paint job when he had it in Townsville. - but now I think about that would have been the 80s.

Members should consider the possible outcomes of the proposed change and make up their own mind and vote accordingly : Obviously I don't support the changes, but that is only one, the majority (or at least those who feel strongly enough to vote) will decide: With the change to a 7 member board. The possibility of 4 board members forming a group (for whatever reason) and having full control of every board decision. Whilst this is not expected, this is a reality. This is without considering the appointment of directors (paid?) which could be controlled by these same 4 - giving rise to the jobs for the boys/girls/mates - an allegation made against a previous board. This is the reality of a small group - the smaller the group the easier to "control". One of the reasons given was saving costs of meetings with the reduction of board members? If you are appointing paid directors then these costs would not be saved and in every likelihood increased. If a particular skill is required for a consideration, this can be obtained without appointing a paid director. Limited terms. The reason for this proposal is very vague to say the least. If an elected representative is considered to be effective why should they be prevented from standing for another term (forget the special provisions)? What is the intent here, there is obviously a perceived reason to include it or it wouldn't be proposed. Sounds like "we can't trust the silly voters to make a considered opinion". If it is not a problem, why include the restriction? It is a grey area to venture into when you start to legislate to stop members achieving what they actually desire. Conflict of interest. If a member has a conflict of interest in a decision to be made they shouldn't be permitted in the decision making process - period. Time to consider a new constitution - Well the proposal is still not finalised and a few weeks before the meeting is far too short IMO - it needs to be digested and then discussed with fellow members. Whilst the proposed changes with the proposed new constitution is supported by the board it is not supported by all board members - with a majority of 4 (new proposal) this decision making by a few becomes a real consideration. Don't just think in terms of the current board members, but of the future possibilities. From what I hear generally the current board is not being attacked but think of what MAY be the result should these changes be implemented and unpopular appointments made. Ultimately the members will have their say on whether they agree or not but what I would like to see is a couple of thousand votes V what we have come to expect i.e. Numbers in the hundred/s.

Yes I think the term as used for a long time is not so much about the medical profession , as a generalisation about a "class" , highly educated with resources but not always educated in aviation related matters.

I think you are closer to other people's views here then you realise. (A couple of overt posters here excepted)

Don, Depending on the outcome of the vote next Tuesday, I have a one in 3 chance of being there to discuss my personal views, otherwise I will certainly express my opinion by way of a proxy vote for what it is worth. In relation to proxy votes, I will register my vote with the RAA office this time, but that is another matter which I will be happy to discuss with anyone on the board should I be successful, but not here.

Sounds like it will be decided one way or the other by proxies. So be it.

Don The one point that is overriding is a simple choice whether one agrees with the new board set up proposal or not. If that is opposed then as it is take it or leave it position. For those, which happen to be "everyone" that I have spoken to locally, anyway, the rest is academic - as I understand it the proposal is a vote for or against the lot. Various aspects can be debated but if one is against the reduced & appointed board proposal then that is it at least for them.

There is various aspects of the proposed new constitution which have extreme opposition. I was hoping I might have some input reflecting members opinions (should I be successful in the current election) however that is not to be whatever the result. I do wonder how much feedback the proposal has had. I am aware that it is Don's baby and he feels very passionate about it and has some support on this site. I realise I have not spoken to a large number of the members of the northern region but I have spoken to a lot, and I am yet to find ONE who agrees. That includes some senior appointed examinators. The statements I have heard, first hand, that if this goes through then I will be supporting the ELAAA proposal worries me. Surely something as important as this deserves more consultation and not this it it, cop it we have decided? Maybe a number of proposed changes as opposed to this is it take it in total? As I have previously stated, whether these strong opinions actually end up in votes I have no idea, but certainly there is a lot of unhappy members about (at least the ones I have spoken to). As I have been told before by certain members of this site, "you wouldn't know", they may be correct, and I will accept that.

For VFR the published reporting points work well

No likely Nev. The dog acts by some, should never be forgotten & and won't by most I suggest, they deserve their "crown" and can wear it forever.

Nothing underhanded at all. It is an individual's choise, just think & not just ignor it.

This won't end nicely. Apart from the obvious - it would be alleged 2 current board members in a meeting with Truss!! Now trust us we only need 7 members reps, by numbers elected by SE Australia by numbers only. Ultimately the members will decide at the upcoming meeting - should they decide to vote. I just hope members give serious consideration to this proposal, it is their choise.

And the a/holes sitting back saying what a good boy am I. Won't be forgotten whatever the future holds.