RAA new Tech Manager

[pudestcon]

I see we have a new Tech Manager, Adam Finn.

 

Does anyone know his background and experience?

 

Pud

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

No, but someone I spoke with at Temora (could have been Steve Runciman) did mention that a contract offer had been accepted.............................................................................Maj...

 

 

[oracle1]

Spoke to him at length last week and he is very switched on and he is an innovator, lets hope he keeps the spirit of grass roots aviation going

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

All he has to do is give us back our original ANO95:10.

 

 

[turboplanner]

All he has to do is give us back our original ANO95:10.

What are the impediments to doing this?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

We can get on with real recreational flying without all the RAAus BS.

 

 

[damkia]

We can get on with real recreational flying without all the RAAus BS.

No reason another recreational flying organisation could not be set up.... or set up shop with the HGFA and extend their boundaries to include recreational aircraft. It does seem that there are significant management and culture issues at the top of RA-Aus that will not go away.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

CASA are NOT interested in another 'controlling' group. HGFA are strictly weightshift only, been there tried that. No replies from SAAA on the subject. Ditto with GFA. What we do need is a FAR103 type cat.

 

BTW anyone read Nev White's letter in the current issue of Sport Pilot? Bet that's the last Natfly he attends.

 

 

[skeptic36]

or set up shop with the HGFA and extend their boundaries to include recreational aircraft.

:roflmao:You have to be joking . You think that RAAus are hopeless. The only thing HGFA seem to be able to do well is to transfer money collected from microlight pilots to events for hang gliders and para gliders.

Regards Bill

 

 

[Deskpilot]

All he has to do is give us back our original ANO95:10.

As Pauline H would say, "Please explain" as I'm currently designing a 95.10 spec plane. I understand this category is still valid.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

do not confuse ANO95:10 with CAO95:10 both the aircraft and catagories are different horses.

 

To really understand this you would have had to been around in the pre AUF/RAAus days.

 

 

[facthunter]

Minorities often have dificulties ozzie but I believe that your best hope still lies with RAAus. As time goes by there may be less support for some things, as the membership changes it's focus. A thought the principle was to maintain all previous rights? That would seem fair enough. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yes the RAAus will be unfortunately the only hope. But the Old Guard needs to be moved on. The needs of the minority should be equally considered. After all the RAAus would not be here today if not for the original ANO95:10. Until members start driving the board and more importantly remove the arrogance of the Exec and the few long term board members there will be the continuing single sighted push to control recreational GA. Maybe bringing back the AUF with it's own board to work alongside the RAAus is needed. RAAus has sights on the new GA Rec license? No doubt this has crossed at least one mind on the board that has a 'tomorrow the world ' agenda.

 

 

[turboplanner]

get rid of the word "Board" first, and then there's no ego trip

 

 

[pudestcon]

get rid of the word "Board" first, and then there's no ego trip

Yep, make 'em "Committee Members", then see if their egos can go on a trip!!

Pud

 

 

[facthunter]

ALL the ( non commercial) sections of aviation should come under a representative umbrella that deals with CASA.. RAAus have/ maybe had big ambitions to "rule the world". I thought this with the name change. It really doesn't matter what you call it it is the structure that matters and the chain of responsibility, ( to the Authority and to the members, be they groups or individuals..

 

How can RAAus be delegated by CASA to "control" it's members and represent their interests at the same time?. IF you are under CASA you have NO say whatsoever in how you are dealt with by them except through a court ( Don't bother) and by belonging to an organisation like AOPA. ( which I do and you ALL should) or a Union if you are working in the commercial side of things. If RAAus "sucks up" to CASA ( which it is doing) it can't act as your "union" as well.

 

If RAAus acts as an authority (on their behalf) I believe CASA should indemnify the RAAus from a "malevolent action". so that should not put the membership at risk.. IF not the membership, put the "board" at risk.

 

It's time to start from scratch and get every body together and sort out a new structure. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

How can RAAus be delegated by CASA to "control" it's members and represent their interests at the same time?

If RAAus acts as an authority (on their behalf) I believe CASA should indemnify the RAAus from a "malevolent action".

 

It's time to start from scratch and get every body together and sort out a new structure. Nev

(a) "Controlling Bodies" pretty much went out of existence in the 1980's; if you control something you take the liability

 

(b) You can't hand off a Tort, and, you can't get undemnity from proscution under the crimes act, such as for culpable negligence.

 

In fact, CASA and its employees by insisting on controlling aviation bodies is in the chain of civil and criminal liability

 

© Good luck.

 

 

[68volksy]

I think CASA's view on RA-Aus in the future is quite clear. The new Recreational GA license is an active move to gather more pilots on the GA side and less on the RA side. The creation of a new form of training organisation that does not require an AOC removes a good deal of the disparity between GA and RA training organisations. I guarantee we'll see more and more GA-registered Jabs and Tecnams out there being used by organisations to train in the Recreational GA License.

 

They're actively moving to push RA back towards its roots in doing these things. The reasons are many and varied and there can no doubt be innumerate arguments one way or the other but actions speak louder than words.

 

In my view CASA's using a good deal of common sense. The more RA-Aus pushed for heavier aircraft and to be allowed into controlled airspace the more they pushed towards the above results. Good result for aviation as a whole just maybe not the result the Board was hoping for?

 

 

[turboplanner]

(a) Is the RPL going to come any sooner than a decade or so?

 

(b) I looked at it, but felt, as long as you were medically fit, the PPL wasn't really all that much of a hurdle, and then for a start you can travel with three other people.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I though a few years ago, that CASA was trying to get out of the GA business and aircraft lighter than that, and concentrate of RPT and the Fare paying passenger? I was of the impression, that they would rather other bodies, eg-RAA, HGFA, etc. Look after their own (still under the rules).So that they CASA could concentrate on RPT passengers safety.

 

 

[68volksy]

CASA Safety Advisors now undergoing training on the new standards (they'll be the some of the ones on the front line) after Greg Hood was moved to Canberra office to implement the suite of new rules over next few years. Some of the changes will be quite soon from the sound of it whilst others will be a little drawn-out no doubt.

 

Every time there's an incident/accident the general public/politicians demand CASA do more to increase safety - it's been that way forever. Unfortunately all RA-aus events find their way onto the desk of the pollies and CASA and reflect badly on them. All the general public sees is 150s crashing into suburban backyards and Sierra's crashing into fairgrounds. CASA's got no choice really but to try to do something - the public doesn't seem to tolerate "it's someone else's responsibility"...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Indeed, we talk to Ozzie re ANO95.10 about being a minority in RAA, yet in reality RAA is an absolute minority in the general populous. If we dont manage and control (or more accurately slightly bend and shape) the general populous then we have to accept what ever stupidity and ill informed nonsense gets ramed down our neck. Its why we all fear the next crazy accident where we are all left shaking our head, the guy that flew low over the boats on the lake....wasnt RAA but in the general populous's eyes that is likely a minor distinction of no relevance.....and we sure didnt seem to do much to drive the importance of the distinction.......Its clear that the general populous consensus can be shaped through education, Pollies and media magnates have been doing that successfully for years. Its a whole area of RAA completely unrelated to day to day transactional stuff that the operations and board (CoM...What ever we want to call them) to me seem to be completely ignoring, or spectacularly ineffective.

 

That said, Im clueless as to what we should be doing, Uni marketing 101 was about as much of that part of business that I could stomach I did really well but did not enjoy one bit muking around in shades of grey all the time....

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't worry too much Andy, have a look at the Barry Hempel thread on prune and you'll really see a stunning story.

 

 

[facthunter]

It was CASA that suggested the 760 Kgs. (Originally). When Mc Cormick arrived a lot of things changed, to what degree I don't know.

 

The brakes went on, but I really have no idea what is projected. I would like to see some decisions made and statements forthcoming.

 

I personally don't read anything into the SAAA's rec licence. It has been a WIP for some years, based on some overseas situations. It won't affect a lot of pilots except it should be noted that the average age of pilots has been increasing for years and the average age of the aircraft likewise. Both issues seem to be being dealt with in a reasonable manner. nev

 

 

[Mick]

Wow! This has gotta be one of the best cases of topic drift ever. I opened this thread expecting to read about the new Tech Manager???