RFguy Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 Maybe I should run. maybe not yet. busy year. maybe next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 Wonder if this counts as Sport Pilot content !!!! Far too adventurous for the management I'm thinking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 I went for old blood MM, and new with Danni to put someone new to RAAus without any GA flying experience of note Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 My mag turned up today, I like it. Wonder if this counts as Sport Pilot content !!!![ATTACH type=full" alt="open frame.JPG]56390[/ATTACH] Only if you can stop that wing spinning?. No money in gyrocopters for RAAus, they would be viewed as competition. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Only if you can stop that wing spinning?. No money in gyrocopters for RAAus, they would be viewed as competition. Looks like Gyros are to be included in the US of A, LSA system Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Looks like Gyros are to be included in the US of A, LSA system Ken I believe the FAA regulates all flying machines without the need for sao's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Isn't Michael Monk the Australian representative for an overseas sourced RAAus aircraft as reported in Australian Flying? How do you spell conflict of interest if this is so? And there are a stack of CFIs there and pilots as well - aren't those conflicts of interest? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 Now I can see what is wrong with RAAus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 I don't see that there is a problem. All candidates must declare their interests and whether they have any commercial benefit from aviation. All these candidates are members and obviously have keen interests if they are running flying schools, selling or maintaining aircraft. That is the way things are. Any member can run for a position so there is no boys club or collusion. If you feel you can do a better job then put up your credentials and get the support of members. The biggest issue is apathy. Usually only about 10% of members bother to vote. I wonder how many people bothered to view and submit questions to the election candidates live stream. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 The apathy of the membership is relied upon by CASA in its SAO arrangements. It makes it easier for CASA to heavy the organisations as the they (the organisations) know that if push comes to shove and they make a stand they may find that they have no support. I find it incredible that a country with 12 times the population (USA) with magnitudes more aviation activity and a wider variety of challenges (terrain, weather etc) can have a regulatory system that does not require membership of any organisation. It is even more incredible when you discover that our regulatory system is supposed to be harmonised with the US FAA system by LAW! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 The apathy of the membership is relied upon by CASA in its SAO arrangements. It makes it easier for CASA to heavy the organisations as the they (the organisations) know that if push comes to shove and they make a stand they may find that they have no support. I find it incredible that a country with 12 times the population (USA) with magnitudes more aviation activity and a wider variety of challenges (terrain, weather etc) can have a regulatory system that does not require membership of any organisation. If that's the case, it's the choice of the US Government, but as a matter of interest, a year or so I went through six feet of USEPA documents trying to find their prescribed maximum level of dioxins in soil. Dioxin is the most dangerous chemical ever synthesised by man, and after a dioxin spil in the town of Times Beach Missouri, the people were evacuated and rehoused elsewhere, the town disincorporated and the dioxin excavated and incinerated. The USEPA used to have a maximum limit, but then it was decreased, by trillions, and today they don't have a limit. If you're an operator who produces dioxins you have to ensure every person in the local population or passing through has a dixoin level in their body of no more than X. So it's a neat result, the family of the deceased sue you and there's a specific autopsy figure which determines whether you pay or not. It is even more incredible when you discover that our regulatory system is supposed to be harmonised with the US FAA system by LAW! I haven't seen that anywhere, but what is happening is that both Australia and the US FAA have been modifying their regulations to conform with ICAO standards, and the FAA rules are not as easy as they used to be. It's hard to keep up with because it seems to be happening as a moving target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 1.003 Harmonisation with FARs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 - REG 1.003 Harmonisation with FARs Key words are: "certain parts" "as in force on 1 January 1971" "modify" It would make sense that where Australia, and the USA were updating to a common ICAO regulation they would both use the ICAO wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 "as in force on 1 January 1971" Actually it says " as in force on 1 January 1997 ". ICAO has no interest in private GA within country borders. EASA has recently recognised this by relaxing SMS requirement for GA. By using ICAO as an excuse for its (in)actions is commonly a smokescreen for its own agendas. For example, the regulations in respect of motor gliders are counter to Annex 7 of ICAO and in part are noted as exceptions in the annex. They can do stuff if they want. The carve out for motor gliders was simply to endorse the power of the GFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 Actually it says " as in force on 1 January 1997 ". ICAO has no interest in private GA within country borders. EASA has recently recognised this by relaxing SMS requirement for GA. By using ICAO as an excuse for its (in)actions is commonly a smokescreen for its own agendas. For example, the regulations in respect of motor gliders are counter to Annex 7 of ICAO and in part are noted as exceptions in the annex. They can do stuff if they want. The carve out for motor gliders was simply to endorse the power of the GFA. We don't have to try and out think them or trap them on some theory, we just have to fly to current regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 16 hours ago, turboplanner said: We don't have to try and out think them or trap them on some theory, we just have to fly to current regulations. It is not a matter of out thinking them or trapping them it is about democracy in action. Democracy requires a certain tension between the executive, bureaucracy, judiciary and the population in order to work. To allow one of these to act without the oversight of the others can only result in a form of anarchy. So it behooves us as participants in the process to do our part and point out inadequacies, inconsistencies, poor regulation and mismanagement when we observe it. As the saying goes: "Bad things happen when good men do nothing." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintonB Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Just saw reminder about postage by 25 th this morning. Walked down and sent my ballot in at lunch time. I would have missed it if I didn’t see the reminder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now