RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[turboplanner]

No question about might or might not - we all understand that the Board holds the power to expend Members' Funds and, by Board Resolution in Feb 2009, the Board established authority limits exactly as Mick describes them.

Note, the Resolution is a formal Board decision, a decision of the Board.

 

Now look again at what the Constitution (Rules) says about what the Exec can and can't do. The words in Rule 11 (iv) make it crystal clear that the Exec cannot act contrary " . . . to any decisions of the Board . . . "

 

Turbo, selectively quoting a few words from Rule 11 (iv) that give powers without also quoting the restraints the same sentence imposes does not enhance your argument.

 

Even if it were not just Ed acting alone, which he said he was, but the Executive acting in concert, they cannot act contrary to Board decisions. They cannot exceed their Board delegated authority.

 

Chances are Ed was not aware he was exceeding his authority as, chances are, he hasn't got a sound understanding of the Constitution, the Rules by which he must operate. It is not a procedure guide it is the law of RA-Aus. To consciously act contrary to the Rules should earn sanction. If you asked Ed tonight he would tell you he still believes he did not act contrary to the Rules. Clearly, he still does not understand the Constitution.

 

The Board has the right to delegate its authority to commit Members' Funds. It does not require an amendment to the Constitution nor a By-Law - just a formal decision of the Board. That decision is then recorded in the RA-Aus Administration Manual for all to see and comply with. The office staff would have no basis on which to pay the STCC as the position was not created lawfully.

 

 

Ed has not acted contrary to the rules; it pays to read carefully what is said.

 

A 13 person board, out of 10,000 members is never in and Association free to quietly make their own resolutions by themselves where matters are significant enough to require a significant number of Members to vote, and to change the Constitution.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Airsick, I am happy you have nominated for the board, and I wish you well in your venture. We have however seen a constant stream of board electees who seem to come on board thinking, or convinced they are the one who has the answers, and the abilitys to change things forever. Some are still on the board , others lasted only weeks, or in some cases only days...The board is a consortium, and must be a united, joint team-effort, with each member offering his best expertise, and effort, toward the combined success of the board as a whole.

 

Politics and egos must go out the door first up, as a successfull working board has no place for these. The current problems we are having with the board have a lot to do with politics and egos, and little to do with combined team efforts. Ed, as the teams current captain took the effort on board, and had attempted to tackle one of our most serious problems...the lack of a SMS that would please the regulator. He had tacked the problem to the best of his ability at the time, and the previously promised support from his 'team' evaporated after the fact. Our current board has not worked jointly as a team, and they must to achieve anything.

 

They have all let politics and egos get in the way of them doing their duties , and for that they all deserve to be replaced as they have failed, both individually and as a team. I have also nominated for the board, but I wish to be a part of a working successfull team. I have no interest in individual egos, and much less in playing politics with our sport.......................Maj...

I couldn't agree more, however, taking unilateral action is not the way to unify a board. The AICD did a short article on dysfunctional boards a short while ago - http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/Publications/The-Boardroom-Report/Back-Volumes/Volume-11-2013/Volume-11-Issue-11/Is-your-board-dysfunctional

 

Notice any similarities?

 

For what it's worth I have ideas, lot's of them. Are they the answers? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to float them and would welcome a bunch of people around the table challenging them. I for one don't see questions as a negative. The reason we have boards consisting of more than one person is to get a diverse range of opinions and views. One person might have all the answers but it always pay to debate the idea to make sure it's the right answer before committing to it.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

My Father always used to tell me that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. It seems appropriate to this thread, I think that of you guys and no doubt you are nodding vigorously thinking that definitely applies to us. Which is exactly as it is on the board tied at 5 for and 5 against most motions.

 

So.....How do we get past this point where neither is prepared to concede an inch. Its the same issue the board has and doesn't appear to have done anything to resolve it. They, due to lack of face to face mechanisms and time only have the board forums and the telephone available to them. How do they move forward. An answer by either side that the other must just give in, is equally likely as suggesting that a lotto win is all that is required to fix things.

 

If I summarise the two positions, I think what I have is:-

 

a) My side of the view that the long road to restoring RAAus to a position where the members and the regulator agree its close to or best practises is through sticking to the rules. This approach will take time

 

b) The alternate view is that we cant afford to take the long road, and lack of time means that "Needs must" applies and that so far while Ed has offered a solution we should all get behind him, ignore alternates and just push forward.

 

The major point of difference between the 2 positions is the time available to us. the a) group wont, it seems, get significant traction until the AGM happens where old reps step down and new reps step up. Its likely at that time because of the uncontested positions in SQLD for 2 board members who are generally in the a) team and the likely defeat of Dave Caban in NSW by someone who we assume will look at the issues on their merits rather than how a block of other reps are voting (that's my opinion rather than a statement of fact). However do we have that time available to us? well only CASA can answer that. There are other side issues, and they are side issues. Turbs getting the laws, and noting that if you stand in a dark corner on your head while reading the documents you may well determine that a reasonable man amonst 10 others might just possibly conclude in a moment of madness that what was done was ok... is an irrelevancy and one that I know he would never have argued before if he weren't of the view that "needs must, the clock is ticking"

 

So, lets all for the sake of argument say that we are the board of the day, and that so far it doesn't seem that preaching at the otherside is making them move an inch, and that an effective board is about finding the middle ground, or an alternate position that everyone can live with (which is not the same as being entirely happy with). So with those constraints lets try and find the middle ground, who knows maybe it can help in the real board.....

 

Any thoughts?

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Surely their can be good politics and bad politics? Not all politics is bad?So, if I were a Liberal voter, I would see Julia Gillard and her mates as "playing politics" but if I were a Labor voter only Tony Abbot and his lot would be playing

 

Individuals working together is often described as teamwork and usually seen to be a good thing.

 

Maj, do you honestly believe that the people who are complaining about the appalling management and god awful governance we have witnessed bring RA-Aus to its knees are just "playing politics"? Do you really think that there is "no case to answer", "nothing to see here, move along"?

 

That no matter how badly RA-Aus is run we should just turn the other cheek, look the other way?

I would like a dollar for every time a member has said to me recently "if they stopped playing politics down there, they might get something done"................

 

It may not look like politics to you, but it sure as hell looks like politics to the membership !!..................Maj...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Oknothing more from me on this issue....

 

Andy

 

BTW did put up hand re insurance did spend a heap of time and effort with another member.........

Andy, your back !!!! ......................Maj...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, your back !!!! ......................Maj...

Major, yes I am, but I tried not to do any preaching....please read what I posted and see if we can try and find middle ground, Its exactly to the point of your email before this one.....

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I wish the board would find the middle ground !!...........ten members is wrong to start with...you need an uneven number to avoid an equal number stalemate...Ed as President (board captain) should also have a vote as he still is a board member, that deciding vote would keep things moving along...............Maj.....

 

 

[Captain]

I wish the board would find the middle ground !!...........ten members is wrong to start with...you need an uneven number to avoid an equal number stalemate...Ed as President (board captain) should also have a vote as he still is a board member, that deciding vote would keep things moving along...............Maj.....

And welcome back to you too Madge.

 

You don't seem so bored any more.

 

As my old mum used to say "Only boring people get bored", so that certainly doesn't apply to you and it is good to see you back contributing meaningfully here.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I wish the board would find the middle ground !!...........ten members is wrong to start with...you need an uneven number to avoid an equal number stalemate...Ed as President (board captain) should also have a vote as he still is a board member, that deciding vote would keep things moving along...............Maj.....

It's not just ten members that is wrong. There is much to be gained from listening to experts on how a board should be structured. There are many guidelines offering advice on this topic. And yet RA-Aus still somehow thinks an archaic structure based on geographic location and the number of mates you have is the most effective means of structuring a board. You could cut it down to 7 members but if you pick them based on a high school style popularity contest we would still end up with a bad board.

 

Half an hour before writing this post I received an email announcing the release of "Good Governance Principles and Guidance" specifically aimed at organisations like RA-Aus. On the topic of board composition they note (their words not mine!):

 

A board needs to have the right group of people, having particular regard to each individual's background, skills and experience, and how the addition of an individual builds the collective capability and effective functioning of the board.

 

So how does our current method of appointing boards achieve this? At what point do we ask whether our board has the right skills and experience? Why do we keep voting in our mates and a couple of CFIs? Why would we think that our model is better than tried and tested principles?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs getting the laws, and noting that if you stand in a dark corner on your head while reading the documents you may well determine that a reasonable man amonst 10 others might just possibly conclude in a moment of madness that what was done was ok... is an irrelevancy and one that I know he would never have argued before if he weren't of the view that "needs must, the clock is ticking"

Sounds like the arguments from your group are beginning to fall apart, so maybe I should draw attention to what our arena is, or isn't.

 

This is not the Roman Forum debating the praesidium

 

This is not as airsick just referred to a Board of Directors - they are not directors

 

The is not the Dad's Army debating competition

 

The President is not as Alfa suggests a "servant of the board", he is the leader. He is not the chairman, he is the person in an Association who provides momentum and direction to its committee and members.

 

We've had a series of Presidents who did not provide leadership, and that's what has led to the rudderless ship syndrome we have now.

 

Right now, after years of secrecy, the insertion of an Executive into the Constitution (and it would be interesting to see whether there was ever a lawful vote for that), and abuse of due process in communicating with the members, researching what they want, and following procedure, the mood among the members, (mainly educated here) who realise they've been conned for years, is way too hostile for me to try to explain the history of Incorporated Associations and why they don't always have to slavishly follow their written constitutions to the letter of why might be judged in a court of law.

 

So I'm not going to do that here; a meeting venue might allow a progressed discussion, but an internet forum is more like a hysterical bee fight.

 

However, for those making irrelevant comments like Andy's, trying to write a different constitution for RAA, unable to understand that it is complicated by a relationship with the Government, or is different to the activities of perfume distribution, I can give some advice which IS inarguable, and that is the take a look at the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (Australian Capital Territory), and then work down from there.

 

That will at least show that the primary problem for RAA has been people simply not doing what they were supposed to be doing.

 

The clock really is ticking, and may well be ticking faster by COB tonight with consequences to follow the decisions of board members today.

 

It is urgent to have an operating Safety Management System meeting the CASA specification not only for what CASA might do to hurry it up, but for protection of assets

 

Aside from that, this discussion has uncovered a number of other urgent matters, from shortcomings in the Constitution ( and I can certainly now see why Steve Runciman became so exasperated that he shut down the CRC), to CASA board member job functions which appear not to have been communicated to new board members, to a Quality Management System, to a board and member communication system based on transparency, to a reduced board size, and so on.

 

Much good has come out of this thread.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

This is not as airsick just referred to a Board of Directors - they are not directors

Did I?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry, please delete "This is not as airsick just referred to a Board of Directors - they are not directors" and replace it with:

 

"airsick just referred to company directors in this quote and link "The AICD did a short article on dysfunctional boards a short while ago -http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...olume-11-Issue-11/Is-your-board-dysfunctional", the AICD acronym standing for Australian Institute of Company Directors - Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. does not have directors, and nor is the job specification the same."

 

 

[DWF]

" the AIDC acronym standing for Australian Institute of Company Directors" ???? ?

 

DNA strikes again?

 

 

[turboplanner]

intermittent dyslexia more like it - corrected

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Sorry, please delete "This is not as airsick just referred to a Board of Directors - they are not directors" and replace it with:"airsick just referred to company directors in this quote and link "The AICD did a short article on dysfunctional boards a short while ago -http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...olume-11-Issue-11/Is-your-board-dysfunctional", the AICD acronym standing for Australian Institute of Company Directors - Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. does not have directors, and nor is the job specification the same."

Might want to read the document Turbs. Here's a snippet:

 

NFP organisations come in various legal forms, including:

 

• Public companies limited by guarantee

 

• Unincorporated associations

 

• Incorporated associations under state or territory law

 

• Co-operatives

 

• Organisations established by special Acts of Parliament

 

(Emphasis is mine)

 

There are many other references to incorporated associations too. And I think you'll find that while not all the responsibilities, job descriptions, accountabilities, etc. are the same between a company and an incorporated association, many of them are. Plus we are a registrable Australian body so significant parts of the Corporations Act apply to us as well.

 

But I haven't referred to our board as a board of directors. That aside, the same principles apply regardless of the semantics. Good governance principles should be applied regardless of whether you want to call them directors, committee members, a board of governors, or a bunch of muppets. The name doesn't matter, the way it is run does.

 

And for what it's worth you might like to take a look at the AICD. Despite their name which you seem to be stuck on they actually have a lot to add to associations like ours. For that matter, so does the Institute of Directors in NZ, the ASX and many other bodies that don't necessarily apply directly to us.

 

I do find it somewhat amusing that people in this thread are doing exactly the same thing that our board has done and the very thing that has disappointed most of us. Strayed away from the point and lost track of the important topics and gotten hung up on defaming, discrediting and otherwise arguing with each other over meaningless things like the name someone gives to an office holder.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry again, I should have looked past the heading - I will read it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just an explanation as to why I'm so pedantic about not calling committee members/board members directors.

 

A couple of years ago, major cracks in the administration emerged and some of us quickly identified that some board members were living the high life emulating company directors while failing to communicate with the members. This extended at times to off-loading work they should have been doing. Three or four groups at times have suggested that RAA should be changed to a company structure, where the extra layering would be very expensive. Most of these people had not read their own constitution and were not really aware of the full power of their Association, or their ability to continually change it to meet changing requirements, targeting issues very precisely.

 

As we now know they also were not aware of what CASA expected them to be doing in accordance with the Sport Pilot handbook.

 

On top of that, a lot of Association members don't come from corporate backgrounds, so covering the full scale of various administration models, particularly on a forum where the conversation can catch fire and take off in any direction can be problematical.

 

So my aim is to keep it as simple as possible with the medium term objective that at least 20% of the commentators will start to read the Constitution and Rules and the CASA documents, and then get more involved in improving the system.

 

The main problem, even today is still to get the people who have a designated function to do it (even if they are just average) and the members to self administer by voting.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

It's not just ten members that is wrong. There is much to be gained from listening to experts on how a board should be structured. There are many guidelines offering advice on this topic. And yet RA-Aus still somehow thinks an archaic structure based on geographic location and the number of mates you have is the most effective means of structuring a board. You could cut it down to 7 members but if you pick them based on a high school style popularity contest we would still end up with a bad board.Half an hour before writing this post I received an email announcing the release of "Good Governance Principles and Guidance" specifically aimed at organisations like RA-Aus. On the topic of board composition they note (their words not mine!):

 

A board needs to have the right group of people, having particular regard to each individual's background, skills and experience, and how the addition of an individual builds the collective capability and effective functioning of the board.

 

So how does our current method of appointing boards achieve this? At what point do we ask whether our board has the right skills and experience? Why do we keep voting in our mates and a couple of CFIs? Why would we think that our model is better than tried and tested principles?

Airsickness, I must disagree with the above where you refer to elected board members as "our mates and couple of Cfis "...your way off the mark there my friend... The Darwinian factor plays a part in the ultimate make up of our board as I see it. Those who don't fit in and become productive members, usually don't last long...they get the shxxs and leave, most often blaming everybody but themselves after they've resigned.

 

It's not a me'thing, you have to have the skills to be able to work within a team, and get a good working relationship going with the other team members. Some simply don't have the skills or talent to do that. It used to be a CFI thing but not anymore, and I'm happy to see the end of that.

 

As far as mates go, once again your off the mark. It is required that you gain the respect , and votes of most of your fellow aviators in your area. I Imagine many of the people that vote for a canidate have never even met that person. People vote for someone because they like what they stand for after reading the nomination statement in the magazine.......period. If you haven't been truthfully in your statement, then basically your out in no mans land....Obviously a portion of votes will come from friends and fellow flyers who know you personally. But then who better to judge you as a suitable canidate......or not ?..............Maj....

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If we can take a small intermission from the semantics (and legalities) of boards vs directors and the issue of proportional /regional representation, I'd like to ask a couple of questions:

 

(1) I've spent my working life in the specialty of airworthiness. Airworthiness has no legal definition; the closest one can get is "compliant with relevant standards". However, even if we cannot precisely define it, we can say what is necessary to achieve it:

 

For an aircraft to be airworthy, it must be (a) Designed correctly - that is, so that its design complies with a relevant statutory standard; (this establishes its Type Design and its operating limitations); (b) Built correctly - that is, so that every part of each example built conforms to the Type Design; © Maintained correctly, so that every part continues to work as the designer intended. One can liken airworthiness to a three-legged stool; if any of the three legs is unsound, it will fall down.

 

So - How does a Safety Management System for an organisation such as RAAus deal with these three crucial issues? I would very much doubt that the drafters of a SMS would be sufficiently expert in these areas to be able to tackle any of them effectively. RAAus has zero capability in regard to input into design compliance, but it has blundered into this area in accepting shonky data for MTOW; so it does not even know its own level of ignorance. RAAus dispenses with Certificates of Airworthiness, i.e. it turns its back on the prime mechanism for ensuring that the aircraft was built correctly; and it hands maintenance responsibility to the owners with zilch surveillance and no proper maintenance record-keeping. So, airworthiness of RAAus aircraft is about as far from being systematically organised as it could possibly be. Plenty of scope there - if the designers of the SMS comprehend these issues.

 

(2) What level of safety are we looking for? I've seen waffle about "zero accidents" but that is simple nonsense. A more realistic idea can be gained by looking at the advisory material for FAR23.1309; it sets a goal for the statistical probability of an accident from all airworthiness causes of around one in 100,000 per flying hour - which requires a probability from any single cause of around one in a million per flying hour. This is based pretty much on the statistical failure rate achieved in GA aircraft certificated under U.S. Civil Air Regulations, Part 3 (e.g. old Cessna 172s, Piper Cherokees, etc.). In other words, this level of risk has been being achieved by the GA airworthiness system, including design, manufacture and maintenance. Obviously, one would expect the RAA statistical results, given the vast holes in its system, to fall well below this. I have not seen an adequate study of them; the data provided by RAAus are abysmal.

 

(3) OK, once we have an airworthy aircraft with defined operating limits, the next step is to make sure the pilots (i) Understand the limits and (ii) Stay within them. I still see blogs asking what MTOW really means - and also advertising that is entirely misleading about the safe speed to fly in turbulent air; and I hear of people spinning aeroplanes that are clearly placarded "Spinning prohibited". So there's something definitely missing in the pilot education. Will the drafters of the SMS pick that one up? Will they also catch the fraudulent Flight Manuals that must accompany aircraft whose MTOW is invalid?

 

(4) Next comes straight pilot error / incompetence. Flying schools may teach, but they cannot force their students to learn. I await with bated breath to discover what magic can be applied by an SMS in this regard - but as a glider instructor I learned that everybody has a stress level at which they blow a mental fuse, and fail to do anything. So it is essential, in training, to progressively raise the student's "fuse blow" level, until he can cope with an emergency without going catatonic. Still, there is a limit to how far a flying school can go; each individual develops thereafter according to his own fundamental ability. There are definitely some people who should stick to golf.

 

All this is traditional stuff. Nothing new in any of it, except to those who truly believe that there ought to be a simpler way. On what premise do such people justify this belief? I've never seen any basis for it.

 

(5) My final question is: What is the point of an SMS when we are now saddled with the legal precedent that flying in a recreational aircraft is an inherently dangerous activity - so that nobody can be punished for negligence in this field? (Rhetorical question - the reason is to be found in S8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act - i.e. it's a piece of flim-flam whose real purpose is to cover CASA's backside.)

 

 

[winsor68]

If we can take a small intermission from the semantics (and legalities) of boards vs directors and the issue of proportional /regional representation, I'd like to ask a couple of questions:(1) I've spent my working life in the specialty of airworthiness. Airworthiness has no legal definition; the closest one can get is "compliant with relevant standards". However, even if we cannot precisely define it, we can say what is necessary to achieve it:

 

For an aircraft to be airworthy, it must be (a) Designed correctly - that is, so that its design complies with a relevant statutory standard; (this establishes its Type Design and its operating limitations); (b) Built correctly - that is, so that every part of each example built conforms to the Type Design; © Maintained correctly, so that every part continues to work as the designer intended. One can liken airworthiness to a three-legged stool; if any of the three legs is unsound, it will fall down.

 

So - How does a Safety Management System for an organisation such as RAAus deal with these three crucial issues? I would very much doubt that the drafters of a SMS would be sufficiently expert in these areas to be able to tackle any of them effectively. RAAus has zero capability in regard to input into design compliance, but it has blundered into this area in accepting shonky data for MTOW; so it does not even know its own level of ignorance. RAAus dispenses with Certificates of Airworthiness, i.e. it turns its back on the prime mechanism for ensuring that the aircraft was built correctly; and it hands maintenance responsibility to the owners with zilch surveillance and no proper maintenance record-keeping. So, airworthiness of RAAus aircraft is about as far from being systematically organised as it could possibly be. Plenty of scope there - if the designers of the SMS comprehend these issues.

 

(2) What level of safety are we looking for? I've seen waffle about "zero accidents" but that is simple nonsense. A more realistic idea can be gained by looking at the advisory material for FAR23.1309; it sets a goal for the statistical probability of an accident from all airworthiness causes of around one in 100,000 per flying hour - which requires a probability from any single cause of around one in a million per flying hour. This is based pretty much on the statistical failure rate achieved in GA aircraft certificated under U.S. Civil Air Regulations, Part 3 (e.g. old Cessna 172s, Piper Cherokees, etc.). In other words, this level of risk has been being achieved by the GA airworthiness system, including design, manufacture and maintenance. Obviously, one would expect the RAA statistical results, given the vast holes in its system, to fall well below this. I have not seen an adequate study of them; the data provided by RAAus are abysmal.

 

(3) OK, once we have an airworthy aircraft with defined operating limits, the next step is to make sure the pilots (i) Understand the limits and (ii) Stay within them. I still see blogs asking what MTOW really means - and also advertising that is entirely misleading about the safe speed to fly in turbulent air; and I hear of people spinning aeroplanes that are clearly placarded "Spinning prohibited". So there's something definitely missing in the pilot education. Will the drafters of the SMS pick that one up? Will they also catch the fraudulent Flight Manuals that must accompany aircraft whose MTOW is invalid?

 

(4) Next comes straight pilot error / incompetence. Flying schools may teach, but they cannot force their students to learn. I await with bated breath to discover what magic can be applied by an SMS in this regard - but as a glider instructor I learned that everybody has a stress level at which they blow a mental fuse, and fail to do anything. So it is essential, in training, to progressively raise the student's "fuse blow" level, until he can cope with an emergency without going catatonic. Still, there is a limit to how far a flying school can go; each individual develops thereafter according to his own fundamental ability. There are definitely some people who should stick to golf.

 

All this is traditional stuff. Nothing new in any of it, except to those who truly believe that there ought to be a simpler way. On what premise do such people justify this belief? I've never seen any basis for it.

 

(5) My final question is: What is the point of an SMS when we are now saddled with the legal precedent that flying in a recreational aircraft is an inherently dangerous activity - so that nobody can be punished for negligence in this field? (Rhetorical question - the reason is to be found in S8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act - i.e. it's a piece of flim-flam whose real purpose is to cover CASA's backside.)

And this is the crux of it all...this culture doesn't exist widely/fully in Ra Aus in my experience...understanding this is not just crucial to the future of recreational flying but also our safety.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Daffydd, I too have a background in GA maintenance, plus I trained under the FAA system of doing things, and still hold an FAA airframe and Powerplant license, so I do have a good understanding of what you speak. Basically as you must know it all pertains to the GA side of things. Obviously many of the parameters in respect to certification must also apply to most rec aircraft as they do fly fine , and structural failure is about as rare as it is in the GA side of things.

 

But Ultralights are different...they always have been, most weren't designed in the first place to confirm to any 'standards ' and certainly not those laid down for GA ,aircraft. I am reminded of something Wayne Fisher told me once, which is a good example of what I am trying to get across. He was working to gain certification for the Austflight Boonah produced Drifters. The CASA certification inspector (one would imagine a CAR 35 eng) turned up with his clipboard ticking boxes. Wayne demonstrated the aircraft in flight , and on landing the CASA man asked what airfoil is on the drifter. Wayne's response " at what stage of flight ? " This floored the inspector and he had no response and no box to tick.

 

As you know most Dacron sailed wings will change their profile in flight, as wing- loadings change. In fact this inflight inbuilt stability factor went a long way towards making the earlier ULs do what they did , and giving them the inbuilt 'stability factor ' that they possessed . Most weren't built conforming to any standard, in fact many started, as did many successfull aircraft from the very dawn of aviation, as a chalk line on a hangar floor.

 

We must be carefull in attempting to 'pigeon-hole' our unique aircraft, as a lot of their continued success' comes from being able to work a bit outside of the square . Many of our aircraft are unique in their design, development and capabilities..............Maj...

 

 

[terryc]

Daffydd, I too have a background in GA maintenance, plus I trained under the FAA system of doing things, and still hold an FAA airframe and Powerplant license, so I do have a good understanding of what you speak. Basically as you must know it all pertains to the GA side of things. Obviously many of the parameters in respect to certification must also apply to most rec aircraft as they do fly fine , and structural failure is about as rare as it is in the GA side of things.But Ultralights are different...they always have been, most weren't designed in the first place to confirm to any 'standards ' and certainly not those laid down for GA ,aircraft. I am reminded of something Wayne Fisher told me once, which is a good example of what I am trying to get across. He was working to gain certification for the Austflight Boonah produced Drifters. The CASA certification inspector (one would imagine a CAR 35 eng) turned up with his clipboard ticking boxes. Wayne demonstrated the aircraft in flight , and on landing the CASA man asked what airfoil is on the drifter. Wayne's response " at what stage of flight ? " This floored the inspector and he had no response and no box to tick.

 

As you know most Dacron sailed wings will change their profile in flight, as wing- loadings change. In fact this inflight inbuilt stability factor went a long way towards making the earlier ULs do what they did , and giving them the inbuilt 'stability factor ' that they possessed . Most weren't built conforming to any standard, in fact many started, as did many successfull aircraft from the very dawn of aviation, as a chalk line on a hangar floor.

 

We must be carefull in attempting to 'pigeon-hole' our unique aircraft, as a lot of their continued success' comes from being able to work a bit outside of the square . Many of our aircraft are unique in their design, development and capabilities..............Maj...

Hi Maj, I don't have your expertise but that is exactly as I see it also.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Daffydd, I too have a background in GA maintenance, plus I trained under the FAA system of doing things, and still hold an FAA airframe and Powerplant license, so I do have a good understanding of what you speak. Basically as you must know it all pertains to the GA side of things. Obviously many of the parameters in respect to certification must also apply to most rec aircraft as they do fly fine , and structural failure is about as rare as it is in the GA side of things.But Ultralights are different...they always have been, most weren't designed in the first place to confirm to any 'standards ' and certainly not those laid down for GA ,aircraft. I am reminded of something Wayne Fisher told me once, which is a good example of what I am trying to get across. He was working to gain certification for the Austflight Boonah produced Drifters. The CASA certification inspector (one would imagine a CAR 35 eng) turned up with his clipboard ticking boxes. Wayne demonstrated the aircraft in flight , and on landing the CASA man asked what airfoil is on the drifter. Wayne's response " at what stage of flight ? " This floored the inspector and he had no response and no box to tick.

 

As you know most Dacron sailed wings will change their profile in flight, as wing- loadings change. In fact this inflight inbuilt stability factor went a long way towards making the earlier ULs do what they did , and giving them the inbuilt 'stability factor ' that they possessed . Most weren't built conforming to any standard, in fact many started, as did many successfull aircraft from the very dawn of aviation, as a chalk line on a hangar floor.

 

We must be carefull in attempting to 'pigeon-hole' our unique aircraft, as a lot of their continued success' comes from being able to work a bit outside of the square . Many of our aircraft are unique in their design, development and capabilities..............Maj...

Maj, you are evidently unaware that Newton Hodgekiss - yes, he was a very experienced CAR 35 engineer - performed extensive wind-tunnel work on the Thruster wing to determine how the aerodynamics of the flexible wing section behaved - because it is not possible to analyse the structure of the wing or the tailplane (and hence, any of the overall structure) without doing so. On most flex-wing aircraft - including the Boonah Drifter (but not the strut-braced Drifter) this has not (to my knowledge) been done so their structural margins are largely unknown; but it was done for the majority of even those early types in Australia. Certificating a flex-wing aircraft is a lot more work than for a nominally rigid wing aircraft, . Most people have no idea that the load on the Skyfox wing is entirely carried by the rear spar at 70 kts, and above that the front spar is loaded downwards, thus further increasing the load on the rear spar. All current factory-built recreational aircraft are either type-certificated or self certified under the LSA requirements, which is supposed to be pretty much equivalent (tho there is ample evidence to the contrary, in some cases).

 

So we must be careful not to erroneously 'pidgeon-hole' our unique aircraft unless we know their history. Newton did the Thruster, Bill Whitney did the Lightwing, I did the Sapphire, and Alan Kerr and I between us did the Skyfox and the early Jabirus. So please do not try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. No, CASA people are NOT CAR 35 engineers - tho a few of them have equivalent levels of engineering knowledge.

 

 

[turboplanner]

My final question is: What is the point of an SMS when we are now saddled with the legal precedent that flying in a recreational aircraft is an inherently dangerous activity - so that nobody can be punished for negligence in this field?

At this stage that process is incomplete, and any precedent would relate to a passenger claim where the pilot could prove the passenger had seen or heard the warning.

 

A million other things can happen in the course of conducting aviation, including a child being chopped up by a spinning prop on the ground.

 

A safety Management System is not a document designed to delve into the depths of design, it is a reference to develop a culture which reduces and manages risks.

 

The aim of that is not to have the accidents in the first place, and yes that is the best way to avoid negligence claims for both us and CASA.

 

I'd suggest that because of what happened yesterday it would be in everyone's best interest to develop an understanding of every tiny facet of an SMS and every tiny obligation to CASA at WARP SPEED!

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Airsickness, I must disagree with the above where you refer to elected board members as "our mates and couple of Cfis "...your way off the mark there my friend... The Darwinian factor plays a part in the ultimate make up of our board as I see it. Those who don't fit in and become productive members, usually don't last long...they get the shxxs and leave, most often blaming everybody but themselves after they've resigned.It's not a me'thing, you have to have the skills to be able to work within a team, and get a good working relationship going with the other team members. Some simply don't have the skills or talent to do that. It used to be a CFI thing but not anymore, and I'm happy to see the end of that.

 

As far as mates go, once again your off the mark. It is required that you gain the respect , and votes of most of your fellow aviators in your area. I Imagine many of the people that vote for a canidate have never even met that person. People vote for someone because they like what they stand for after reading the nomination statement in the magazine.......period. If you haven't been truthfully in your statement, then basically your out in no mans land....Obviously a portion of votes will come from friends and fellow flyers who know you personally. But then who better to judge you as a suitable canidate......or not ?..............Maj....

I'll meet you half way Maj. You're probably right that we have somewhat moved on from the CFI and mates model but as far as ineffective people not lasting long I disagree. Dave Caban, Paul Middleton, Eugene Reid, (the list goes on) stopped being productive a long time ago and our model allows them to keep eating sandwiches at the board meetings without providing any real value.

 

And as far as having the required expertise on the board, I don't think we've got that either.

 

I very much agree with your statements about having the ability to work as part of a team though. It's probably one of the single most important attributes of a board member.