frank marriott

For RPC pilots, possibly considering a RPL or believe they will get CTA (or weight increase) without a PPL type medical - Please remember Monk voted AGAINST medical reform for the RPL, do the blind supporters STILL think his actions are for the benefit of ANY recreational flyer. Just think about it for a while. I would suggest RAA members need to seriously consider what they actually want and let their feelings be known (and I still have a CASA medical although with age it gets more expensive with extra tests which only after paying the money specialists then report still fit to fly). Serious matters but blind acceptance will produce a predictable result.

???????? 95.55 7.3 (a) states aeroplane limitations (b) states engine limitations These limits apply to all CTA & restricted areas not just over built up areas.

I disagree, above 5000ft area freq is very important.

If you inspected the remains of the aircraft you may have a different opinion. Things like melted heads, valves and springs feet from the impact point, no identifible switches let alone what position they might have been in. Suffice to say not a lot of evidence available at the scene.

Agreed, that was what I unsuccessfully attempted to get across.

Conditions/limitations etc all listed in 95.55 - certainly not a blanket approval for a registration type but an exemption for aircraft that comply with the CAO - certainly excludes many RAA aircraft but also allows compliant ones. Civil Aviation Order 95.55 (Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes) Instrument 2018

“or aircraft” is the only disagreement. I never suggested RPC holders have open CTA access. Several have done the RPL upgrade solely for unrestricted CTA access in their complying RAA registered aircraft. So to remove any misunderstanding a) aircraft (compliant with 95.55) YES b) RPC holders (without a CASA licence) NO

The local organisation (and their current students) will be surprised to hear that they are classified as inactive.

Remember minimum instrument requirements for VFR flight VH or otherwise (either in or out of CTA) - ASI, ALT, Compass and watch.

Out of date - RAA training in class C also in RAA registered aircraft (I believe with a medical) but certainly without a CASA licence.

Wrong!! 1. CAO 99.55 does not quote LSA - some restrictions on aircraft and engines but not limited to LSA - have a read. 2. Requiring L2. - absolutely wrong even to this day ( only instrument certification : previously only needed transponder certification by qualified person for class C : instrument certification by L1 as per the previous Tech Manual in two sections (a) for OCTA and (b) for CTA : one each 12 months and the other 2 yearly - bastardised to some extent by the current manual insisted on by Monk. 3. As stated the pilot restriction was and still is RPL or higher not RPC only. As stated the restriction is currently on licence not Registration of aircraft - I have been legally operating my RAA registered aircraft, L1 maintained, in class C for ten years.

Not likely to change when you only get to vote for 2 generally unknown people - by design I would suggest.

U We have had CTA for over 10 years via CAO 95.55 for RAA aircraft just not with RPC only. Stage one of LAME maintenance started with the latest Tech Manual for CTA and guess what NOT from CASA & NOT from the board but from M.Monk & D.Banfield - the minutes of the board debate shows this although I would guess access would be a problem (I naturally kept a personal copy but not at libity to publish)

With the current “leadership” of RAA you can expect LAME maintenance AND PPL medical. Remember 1. The RAA published statement “will ensure work for LAMEs” 2. Monk votes AGAINST RPL medical reform. Don’t be confused with political style press releases, look at what is happening & being proposed by “our” representatives. It is way passed time that members realise and accept where our organisation is heading & and at a fast rate!

Bruce If you compare the practise of medicine with the operation of RAA, then I’ll leave that opinion completely up to you and say upon that matter you and I will never agree.

I think the technical aspects of how a wing etc works is important to a designer/builder but to the average Pilot it matters little (high performance excepted) - a basic understanding is certainly helpful but detailed debate is really not that relevant on low performance aircraft. I am reminded of an incident many years ago when I fronted up for a CHTR and informed the manager that I had never flown the particular type before (was SE) and was told it is just an aeroplane, push the knobs to the firewall and pull back on the stick and it will fly like the others. I accept it was not desireable, and probably wouldn’t happen these days, but guess what he was right.

Police involvement is based on two issues A) Anything that does or may involve the coroner’s court (the “may” part is the grey area requiring consideration especially when injuries are involved often involving investigations just in case) B) Any criminal act or suspected criminal act In the absence of a or b the matter is left to the “relevant” authority.

Did you question them about opposition to medical reform? I suspect our “esteemed” leadership has NO idea about the number of RPC holders who also hold part 61 licences (particularly RPCs). Australia wide I have no idea either, but locally I do, and it is reflective of no feedback from regional areas as one expects from Canberra centric individuals who oppose regional input - but that was forecast and now coming home to roost.

Have a look on the AOPA site for more details. Information obtained via a FOI application. One would suspect the voting was expected to be kept secret. Perhaps email Monk direct to find his opinion/justification. I suspect an oversight of the number of RPC holders who also hold RPL & PPL qualifications.

Fully aware of the make up of the board. Whether you agree or not with (a) the make up or (b) the direction being taken is up to each individual. I just wish a much larger percentage of members would vote and we would see a clearer picture of the overall opinions one way or the other (I accept it is difficult to create enthusiasm when you only get to vote for 2 directors - unknown to most - but that is the system good or bad)

Remember DIVISION was how the small clique gained control of a member’s organisation - certainly has potential for disaster in the long term. Try talking privately with members of the “perfect mini board” and you will get a picture of what is happening behind closed doors.

Nev, reminds me of when I did my initial instrument rating, I think it required 10 wpm Morse receiving, because of other studies in electronics I had at the time 30wpm sending and receiving and found the nav aide speed (especially the DME) so slow that I would identify a letter before the full letter was transmitted. A comical response from one character on an early departure (when before TWR opened the ATIS on the aids would transmit location only in Morse and some delay after TWR opened before ATIS info was updated) he asked for airways clearance and included “in receipt of dar dit dar dit dit”. Probably happened a bit around the traps but I only heard it the once and thought it was a good reply.

With enough disgust there is still the option of calling a general meeting and turfing them out!

Have a look at the AOPA letter and attached extract showing how Monk votes AGAINST medical reform for private flying. For those still to realise the disastrous mistake made giving the autocratic control to a couple of people that quite obviously have a hidden private agenda that is contrary to the wishes/desires & benefits of ALL private flying. Members of RAA really need to re-assess their position on this type of behaviour before an implosion