frank marriott

Is anybody in close contact with any of the board to ascertain what is really going on in secret? Most people wouldn’t know any of the board personally which was the obvious intention of the nationwide selection process.

Typical aggorance on display.

Just have a look at the number of airports that are members of this association will answer any doubt. Remember this CTA push is ONLY about RPC holders and RAA Reg qualifing aircraft ALREADY have access, have had for years. If anyone thinks they are going to get CTA without a CASA medical, at this stage anyway, are in a different world to me. RPC with a CASA medical is effectively a RPL, already available.

This is the current method of control. No notice will ever be taken of the membership whilst total control of a roughly 10,000 membership organisation is vested in 4 people - just running their private agenda. Short of another General Meeting to regain control disagreement by members will continue to be treated as only NOISE. Electing 2 members each year will never accomplish change (as it was designed to prevent). General feeling of everyone I have spoken to is discust & annoyance but certainly not surprise. Seems to be an acceptance of an inevitable implosion.

Try flying close without declaring formation in class C (where I spend most of my CTA time) and you will be given certain guidance - limited time in secondary & class D.

“My worry (as FH sort of alluded to) is an RAA regoed aircraft/pilot having an incident with a major rpt aircraft at a cta controlled airport.” ——————————- Has been incident free to my knowledge for over 10 yrs, so nothing new here (for RAA reg aircraft, pilot must currently have GA licence or under instrution) I have been using my LSA in C & D for 10 years. Needs training but nothing great just some differences. There are plenty of 17yr olds flying in CTA. remember in CTA the tower ensures separation.

The only way to get ANY satisfaction from the current administration is to call a General Meeting with the potential to overthrow them aka the “freedom to fly” fiasco.

I would suggest there is a BIG difference between Govt. Depts. using supplied information to enforce the law to a PRIVATE COMPANY releasing personal details of customers to another party for monetary gain. I am not up with the current law surrounding this action but I certainly have reservations about its lawfulness.

You can’t legislate common sense and a safety culture - if both (or either) are missing pieces of paper mean zero. It is a developed industry and will be defended to the death by individuals making money by writing heaps of paper to justify their existence but in the end someone has to do the actual work or in our case actually fly the aeroplane or the paper shufflers cease to exist. I can forecast some of the replies but will not entertain their attempted justification, life goes on with or without the tree destroyers (some actuall claim to be greenies as well).

Naturally the practice already happening of not using a radio or false call signs will cease! An undesirable outcome. Makes one wonder where some of these “clever” ideas come from - certainly not connected to the real world that most live in.

Jaba you are correct of course with reference to CTA.The conditions are listed in ANO 95.55 The ONLY limit currently is pilot qualifications/medical. e.g. I have been using class C&D for 10 years in a RAA registered aircraft

They need to be carefull that they don’t get sidetracked with the aircraft V CTA argument - RAA registered aircraft are already allowed CTA access and have been for over 10 years subject to CAO 95.55 restrictions, including training in both class C & D (with a CASA medical). Instrument requirements for day VFR are ASI,ALT, compass & Watch (with transponder for class C). The issue is the medical standard for RPC RPL & PPL holders and nothing to do with CPL & ATPL. Listening to the reply’s from CASA one could easily form the opinion that increased MTOW and CTA (for RPC holders) are nowhere as close to fulfilment as we are led to believe by some?

Spencer Ferrier and Tony King certainly appeared to be out of their depth - apart from a prepared statement came across wanting IMO. Not really surprising given the dictorial style taken by RAA admin in recent years, part 4 will of great interest. The advantage given to a now “private” company by a Govt. Dept. is a big hurdle I believe. The “great change” to RAA structure from an association to a private registered company has the potential to cause grief. Certainly interesting times ahead I suspect depending on how much influence a senate inquiry can have and naturally what their actual findings are. My interest is gererated on a few levels being a RAA member, LSA owner, RPC holder, ex RAA board member and a CPL.

A pet hate of mine is “I have you visual” instead of “traffic sited” The term visual has always been (at least to me) I’m in VMC.

On a committee and VOTED not asked an opinion. I have written detailed response to your post, but will sit on it for a day or so whilst I consider whether to post it or just let the matter take its natural course. Probably adopt the latter. Suffice to say that if ALL organisations worked for the benefit of pilots and not try to empire/ego build and set up restrictions then the aviation industry would be better off - not one against the other as many pilots are qualified with more then one licence/certificate.

Really!! Do you honestly believe that statement. Monk is already ON RECORD voting AGAINST medical reform for the RPL. Quite a lot of RPC holders have already done the RPL solely for CTA access and he is against that. Look at the facts of performance and not the hype. Remember the proposal for MTOW increase included LAME maintenance by “OUR?” Organisation “to ensure work for LAMEs” unbelievably their words. One needs to seriously consider the intent of certain individuals. I guess “money for LAMEs” partly explains the renigned, CASA appointed and resigned, ex Tech Manager now back on a permanent RAA wage secrecy fiasco.

“The Board also discussed medical policy and met with CASA during the course of our meeting to discuss appropriate medical reform opportunities for RAAus. We look forward to sharing the outcomes of these discussions with members once they are finalised.” The above quote should ring alarm bells to membership (obviously depending on your individual opinion of the direction taken by the two Ms) but should give cause to at least what “reforms” they are seeking. Ignore these individuals at your own peril - just look at some of the “forced” changes to the Tech Manual (submitted by Linke before agreement by the then current board). I have given up, but get control back to membership or accept GA conditions, it is up to the membership who supported the change in structure or accept the outcomes and don’t complain about the result. (I would have not have purchased a LSA aircraft had I had any idea that RAA would go the way it has). Remember Monk voted AGAINST reform for the RPL and if you still support him I have nothing further to submit (result only found out by FOI application).

Hope all is well and you have just been busy. Haven’t heard from you for a while. Although I do not necessarily agree with everything you say I do enjoy reading your opinions.

I started flying with 45mins fixed reserve plus variable of 10 or 15% and never changed that approach so to my operations it is purely worthless words.

Read the complete reg. It is covered (with low level end.). Tax has nothing to do with hire & reward.

It is quite straight forward if you look at it from the “intent” of the legislation IMO. You and I see it differently, so be it, I don’t intend to debate the issue.

The definition of private operations is quite clear IMO. Amongst some other conditions it clearly states (V) 1. The carriage of persons without charge for the carriage 2. The carriage of goods being the property of the pilot, owner or the hirer of the aircraft 3. NOT the carriage of goods for the purpose of trade Political opinions are best expressed on the sister site if that is ones desire

I wouldn’t call $2.30 per ltr cheap.