RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[Guest Maj Millard]

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.

Thank you for your reply Dafydd, No I was not aware of the work of a Mr Hodgekiss, nor did I know Australia possessed a wind-tunnel large enough to accept a Thruster wing.!!........Probabily because I was out of the country at the time playing with a real wind-tunnel at the NASA Ames facility at Sunnyvale California. Here they allowed several UL manufactures to use their impressive facility to test and evaluate several models. They also had access to the Cray super-computer (at the time) and their engineers to help evaluate the data in real time.

 

Since my return to this country I have also become very familiar with the Skyfox, mainly from having to repair several critical areas that have suffered failures . As you know the Skyfox was a direct copy of the Kitfox range with some notable changes. The departure of the ailerons at inappropriate times, being one notable weakness that the Kitfox never suffered from. The lightening up of the main landing gear tubing (035" !!??) being another, causing failures after a botched landing, because the flat fixed horizontal would stall out in the flare. The Kitfox on the other hand didn't because of it's airfoil section fixed- horizontal. It had a much tougher and more successfull landing gear anyway. The inherent design weakness of the aileron hangers is a continued point of concern unless modified with strengthening kits.

 

I currently own And fly a Lightwing so yes I am also familiar with the work of Bill Whitney. The airframe as a whole which I believe Bill had a lot to do with, is very well designed and long lasting. The 912 engine mount is a work of art as demonstrated on one occasion when a training LW in my area had a hawk fly straight into the prop at full power on climb out. The resulting impact and destruction of the prop bent all four (-6) mount bolts, and threatened to pull the heads of those bolts through large diameter washers under the heads. The mount itself suffered some bending, but it did handle the forces. The engine was definitely attempting to escape !.....

 

In comparison , the 912 mount also designed by Bill on the Slepcev SS4 Storches, is, in it's design quite a bit lighter, and potentially weaker, Probabily because of Nestors' obsession with weight. I doubt if a Storch mount , compared to the Lightwing mount would survives the same forces, even though the energy potential is exactly the same, if not more because of the larger diameter prop.

 

I have never understood Bills' work in this area. Obviously his calculations told him the mount was strong enough on the Storches, which would make the Lightwing one massively strong, by comparison ??............................Maj...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

When did the Thruster wing go into a wind tunnel? There was a change to the wingtip design but that came about from tuft testing. All structural testing was done at Kirrawee factory via normal loading methods. Never heard of full size wind tunnel testing tho. Could be wrong, lot of sneaky crap going on at that time.

 

 

[Oscar]

The departure of the ailerons at inappropriate times, being one notable weakness that the Kitfox never suffered from

Ask Dafydd Llewellyn about his experience of aileron flutter when test flying the Skyfox - and the work that Alan Kerr did to overcome the binding of the ailerons in higher-G turns. The Kitfox was a truly dreadful aircraft, the Skyfox was made - eventually - to be slightly less dreadful by the work of Alan Kerr and Dafydd Llewellyn. However, the wing section exhibits a reversal of loading under speed / gust conditions that has been fatal. The general construction, I would personally not accept on a billycart for my kids to use - and I regard Band-aids and Dettol as mandatory supplies as a parent and a grandparent.

 

The lack of informative accident reporting that RAA (in particular) exhibits is an area that I find extremely disturbing - members do not know of potential structural / aerodynamic problems with aircraft that they may own, or contemplate buying. It's not always good in the GA world either - how many people would know, for instance, that the Lancair 360 when stall tested, dropped a wing to 70 degrees - repeatedly. Statistically one of the most fatally dangerous aircraft in the air! That 'fly at your own risk' placard really, really means it, and should perhaps add: 'tell your children that Daddy may not be coming home from this flight'. There are plenty of ultralights that are not much better - but how do we find out about that? There's no ANCAP safety rating equivalent reporting.

 

Australia is actually rather blessed with some very fine aeronautical engineers and a number of our indigenous ultralights reflect this, where they have been involved in the development. Look at the injury record for Jabirus and Lightwings, for instance - they get thrown into the scenery and almost always, everybody on board walks away muttering. That is not accidental (pun intended!). They may not boast of 'fighter-like-handling', or the extreme claimed performance figures of some of the imported beasts (and most of those claims should be looked at with a very jaundiced eye, indeed) - but they are very much the Toyota Camry's of the air - get in, turn the key, go from one point to another without drama - in Australian conditions. That might not stroke your ego as an aircraft owner , but you can have a reasonable expectation of growing old as an aviator.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Airframes yes.

 

 

[dazza 38]

My wife (at the time) was in the Skyfox with Brett Leathley that had the wing carry through tube failure just off the coast of Bribie Is. Brett managed to put the aircraft down on the beach. It was corroded from the inside out. The surrounding fuselage tubing carried the load after the failure (just) until Brett got the aircraft down .

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Yeah I remember that one. Real fortunate.

 

 

[David Isaac]

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.....

Ross, each of the executive members do get to vote as ordinary Board members. Under our constitution the President does NOT get an additional casting vote. If any motion is voted as a tie, then the motion fails.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

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

TP, I put to you a reasoned argument quoting facts and referencing the Constitution and you come back with a one-line assertion. No argument, no facts, no logical contradiction of my argument.

 

If that's the best you can do, please do not quote my work and dismiss it with a wave of the imperial Turboplanner royal arm. If that's the best you can do, please do not comment on my arguments.

 

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.

And that is not even English. Translation please. Perhaps some punctuation might help?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I had already quoted the facts, and explained that this forum was not a suitable platform to debate the subtleties of how an Incorporated Association handles situations not catered for in the constitution, however that's all over now with Ed's resignation and it will be up to CASA to decide how to deal with the failure since around 2010 to install a Safety Management System.

 

I saw in Ed the first signs of a President who had taken decisive action to protect the interest of members (lounging around dithering over a major safety culture is exactly the opposite). I also saw Ed as the first person who had both general management credentials and the ability to provide desperately needed leadership.

 

With him gone, I've lost interest in trying to prevent the inevitable path which usually follows from failing to respond to CASA's requirements.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

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.

Unsubstantiated assertion and use of the pejorative "fall apart" as if it had no strength in the first place.

 

This is not the Roman Forum debating the praesidium

Relevance?

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

The Committee of a P&C or a local Aeroclub are hands on workers, collecting and banking cash, writing letters and sending out notices to members, etc. RA-Aus has employed staff to do the day-to-day work. If Board Members get involved in the administration and operation of the Association they are meddling and getting in the way of the people we pay to do that.

We need our Committee (Board) Members to act like directors. They need to be focused on strategy not tactics. They need to be looking well into the future and setting strategic direction. They need to understand reports from the employed management to ensure Policy is being followed and the managers are following the corporate plan (including budget). Sounds like Director work to me not active committee work.

 

No matter how many times you like to assert that they are (technically) Committee Members it is not what we need them to be. And we don't need to move to a different form of incorporation, we just need them to recognise what RA-Aus needs and DO IT.

 

The is not the Dad's Army debating competition

Relevance?

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.

Try reading the Constitution TP. The President gets one vote on the Board same as the other 12 Board Members. He/She has no powers granted to him/her by the Constitution or the Board to lead or direct the Board. The Constitution, Rule 14A, assigns the President the role of "Chairman" of all meetings. A good chairman will get the best out of the Board not by leading but by drawing the best out of each Board Member not by ramming his/her views down their throat and going to war against anyone who dares to resist the will of the chairman.

 

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.

I can accept your assessment of Eugene Reid. But, are you suggesting that Steve Runciman and Ed Herring were weak leaders? Ineffective perhaps but weak?

 

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,

I was with you up to there but then you suggested:

 

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.

Why have one if you are not going to comply with it?

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.

It becomes that when argument gives way to assertions and unreasoned denial.

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.

Well, I have read that Act a number of times and was pleasantly surprised to see it is one of the most straight forward, easy to read and understand Acts I have read. So, TP, if you have a point how about making it explicitly and quoting your references to sections and/or case law? I am very over the veiled suggestions you always seem to make that somehow we just don't understand what's going on or what the rules are and that you are the only one that does.

It is not a complicated relationship with the Government, it is a very simple and clear cut and well documented relationship. There are the aviation laws and the Deed of Agreement. Pretty straightforward to my way of thinking.

 

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

Even the members who just want to go flying have worked that one out when their aircraft is chained to the ground.

 

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

Agreed. And it might even provide some protection for the lives of those involved directly in Recreational Aviation and the people that they do it around and with. We all understand there has been an intolerable delay from Feb 2012 until recently in getting moving on rolling out the SMS. But it has started and it will build momentum. And CASA is going to keep prodding to make sure the Board gets on with it. The argument on the Board is not whether we get a SMS it is how the expertise to get it up and running is acquired. There is no argument about the improper offer to MB. That has been wisely and properly decided by the Board in the negative.

 

Aside from that, this discussion has uncovered a number of other urgent matters, from shortcomings in the Constitution

There will be quite a number of amendments put to the Members at the coming AGM and a complete restructure at the AGM after this one at Natfly 2014.

 

( and I can certainly now see why Steve Runciman became so exasperated that he shut down the CRC),

I can only assume that is a bait. Play nice, please. Everyone knows that Steve Runciman shut down the CRC - the original CRC and the revived CRC - because he was not in control of the changes to be proposed. More than 75% of voting members approved the work done by the members who had made up the official CRC - not included in the 75+% were Runciman and Middleton who campaigned against the improvements.

 

Much good has come out of this thread.

It has but nothing good has come out of your post and this is absolutely the last time I'll engage in a conversation with somebody so reluctant to do more than assert a point of view - one you are perfectly entitled to but substantiated by no more than assertion.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

You two seriously need to get a room !!!..?...................Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not me Major - I'm out of it - we had two completely different agendas.

 

 

[Tiger]

Yes Maj the room would not be big enough for them to stop hitting the walls as they attacked each other

 

 

[David Isaac]

It would be interesting ... Can I sell the tickets and run the odds ??

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Yes Maj the room would not be big enough for them to stop hitting the walls as they attacked each other

I thought you were going to say not big enough to fit their swollen heads. My mistake.

 

But seriously maybe your own thread instead of a room at least until you got to know each a little better.

 

 

 

[Tiger]

Drifter drivers head banging is quite appropriate. Don't know how the odds would run, but I think you will get a lot of ticked sales.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Not me Major - I'm out of it - we had two completely different agendas.

Oh come on Turbs, you and Alfa could be real good friends then used a combined avatar "turbopoweredAlfa"................Maj.......

 

 

[David Isaac]

Actually ... I know its is hard to tell ... but they do love each other ... really ... in the brotherly sense OK ...

 

 

[David Isaac]

Oh and BTW Tubz ... fear not my friend ... I am certain you both have the same end in mind ... the survival of a fully functioning RA Aus. You just have different approaches to the same end.

 

Come on ... I know you really love each other ...

 

Come on XXX OOO

 

 

[turboplanner]

Out is out, there were things that were critical to be done fast. CASA has to react to that.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I think you will find that what remains of the Board will be acting quite expediently ... at least we can but hope.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well we'll see David, they may be the biggest bunch of twits ever assembled in one place, at least it appears that way for not wanting to work with Ed...........( is that political..sxxx !)..........Maj....

 

 

[Tiger]

How could anyone work with a dictator that wanted it all his way and no other way. No democracy involved, therefore we had a board of ONE, and all other members could say or do nothing or vote as us members had indicated to them.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well we'll see David, they may be the biggest bunch of twits ever assembled in one place, at least it appears that way for not wanting to work with Ed...........( is that political..sxxx !)..........Maj....

Probably Ross, but a lot of what is discussed in good faith and in the genuine belief of being in the interest of RA Aus is unfortunately dismissed as "political sxxt". Usually by those who don not understand the issues, judge from a distance and "just want to fly". The ultimate tragedy is that that kind of attitude by the majority will lead us to exactly where we are today.

I had high hopes for Ed and had believed he was the man for the moment at least. The current Board issue is way more complex that just 'backing Ed' and unfortunately Ed compounded the problem with his unilateral decision. I am sorry to see him go, but none of us are indispensable and RA Aus will ultimately be better for these troubled times.

 

We have seen a lot of pisxing on the post going on here, but I think aside from all that we all genuinely want the RA Aus to come through this a better organisation. Clearly there are different views on this and the discussion has been overall robust and constructive.

 

Even those two endearing rogues Tubzy and the A Romeo ultimately want what is best for RA Aus ... and they really do love each other ... (sorry couldn't help myself, I like them both very much and believe they collectively raise the bar significantly).

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well not sure what bar you are referring to there, but yes , I do believe they are deeply in love with each other also, I mean who could resist a man in an Alfa Romeo ???..................Maj...