kasper

If you think only control of power and attitude is required to fly I’m voting to be on the ground watching you do any form of crosswind takeoff and landing ... my maddest student was never so focussed ... and he was a nuclear scientist who over thought EVERY action and demanded I explain everything in mathematical proof.

Control

I was trying to avoid that one simply because it’s not particularly applicable to gliders which are three axis fixed wing aircraft.

Manwell you REALLY must think your questions through. You appear to be going back to the simple 2 equations for balanced flight (lift = mass plus thrust = drag) and thinking we will link that so something about flying by visual reference to the outside. Thats not HOW we fly as your question asked. And if it was the simple equations plus visual reference you were thinking of then it’s not limited to fixed wing aircraft. And if it’s got anything to do with using ailerons or any particular flight control it’s not applicable to all fixed wing aircraft. Eg fixed wing two axis aircraft can have no ailerons and some fixed wing ultralights use combined weight shift and control surfaces. may I suggest to post your intended answer here and start again on something that’s a lot clearer

Afraid I’m not able to put out a PDF as I’d hoped as I want to include details of dates and who to contact as RAAus. Whilst the dates for the the election are 1August to the end of September the contact at RAAus to follow up missing ballots etc on is not known. Once the August magazine is out I’ll create one.

How to fly from a fixed wing pilots perspective ... 30 words or less ... You manage your aircraft within its and your limits using its controls to move in your desired direction accomodating the changeable nature of the air in which you fly.

Thanks for the comments. 1. I am happy to create a simple .pdf flyer of the statement and pic and set out the general dates etc for the election. I'll post it on here tonight 2. I am not going to get into what other aspirants or existing directors or the CEO may think of my nomination. My intention are that this thread from my perspective will be posative only in content so I am not commenting adversley on anyone and if there is a negative it will only relate to a policy or position that I disagree with. Not interested in playing the people, I am looking only to represent a point of view on policy and direction of RAAus that I want to take into the board. Whilst it is divergent from where I see RAAus heading I am not looking at attributing the cause of difference to any particular person/people.

Hello all. I did say in the RAAus Board Election 2019 thread where nominations were called that I would open a thread for communicating with members and indeed any forumites during the election as I accept that 750 words in a magazine with a photo may not be the totality of what I would like members to know about me or where I think the direction of RAAus should be. I checked with Ian that his would be OK and he is happy to allow it. If any other candidate wants to open their own thread to canvas/explore/explain their position feel free to do so as a separate thread to this as I would prefer to keep this thread focused on what my position views are. Feel free to ask through this thread or by private message anything you wish and I will reply as I can. I will add comments to this thread - and this thread only - on my intentions if I am successful in being elected and appointed to the board. As a starter here is the 750 words that will appear in the magazine. "I am an RAAus pilot member and have been since the early 1990s when I trained on the jabiru. By the mid 1990’s I became an AUF instructor, then senior instructor on the jabiru, skyfox, drifters and thrusters. I added Level 2 maintainer based on my experience in rebuilding tiger moths and overhauling engines. Through to the turn of the century I enjoyed rebuilding, maintaining and training pretty much anything that was AUF registerable from my workshop/sailloft. In 2002 I moved to the UK and recertified on weightshift microlights and enjoyed flying around the UK and Europe in a 1986 weightshift I rebuilt. Whilst not an instructor in the UK I enjoyed the flying club model of operations and ‘trained’ many pilots on how to file and fly international flight plans to cross the channel. I also started a CAGI cup for the UK based on the Australian CAGI as I know it is a brilliant and fun way to enjoy your flying. In the UK I was elected to the board of the British Microlight Aircraft Association – the equivalent of RAAus – and brought my experience and skills in both flying microlights and business management to the board. Whilst on the board I organized the Round Britain Microlight Rally and found that rewarding and exhilarating. I returned to Australia in 2014 and I have settled here now enjoying building, maintaining and flying my own little fleet of RAAus planes. I currently hold RAAus pilot certificate with all control groups and pretty much every endorsement other than variable pitch and flyingboats/floats. I feel that the as RAAus in its management and direction has drifted over the past 4-5 years from low cost low impact fun flying and I am asking to be elected to the board to bring that focus and clarity back. I want to belong to and represent an organization not with a focus on “A pilot in every home” but one of “A pilot in any home’. A refocused attention on lowering costs, admin and processes to allow RAAus to be as affordable and as free from process and admin as it can be without moving into unsafe operations. I want to see expansion of the coverage of RAAus however it MUST NOT be at a cost of giving up the distinctive nature of why we exist. Nor can we continue to give up hard won exemptions and freedoms without cause. I am firmly of the opinion that evidence based regulation is the key - if there is no evidence of RAAus freedoms and practices resulting in actual safety failings then we should not change just to increase coverage. I feel that RAAus has effectively leveled up to GA on process and policy in an attempt to gain greater concessions. Areas such as medicals, owner maintenance, owner builders processes have become far too GA like in the pursuit of expansion of RAAus. I believe that GA recreational flying should have been using RAAus safe history to remove restrictions and burdens they faced rather than RAAus adding them. We have reached the ridiculous situation that you can design and build your own aircraft and register it but then not be allowed to modify it without RAAus technical office involvement and costs … even though RAAus are not legally allowed to direct you to make any change or refuse to accept your modification. Equally we have an operations manual that fails to require 2 yearly flight checks on some control groups because RAAus overlooked including them in our Ops manual. I want to get the focus back onto supporting and allowing members to own and operate aircraft with minimal touch and cost while the RAAus executive and board focus on ensuring good administration and maintaining our freedoms. The dry factual bits: 1. I receive no income, remuneration or honoraria from any flying related activity 2. I am a Chartered Accountant (fellow of the ACCA) 3. I am an admitted solicitor in NSW (not currently practicing) 4. I am a certified project manager (PMI certified) 5. I have a 25 year career in finance governance and process improvement in Australia, the UK and the USA 6. I am currently the finance manager of a not-for-profit housing association in Australia – turnover circa $25m 7. There are no impediments to me being appointed as a director of RAAus My qualifications, business experience and history as set out evidence strengths in policy setting, strategy development, financial oversight and review."

Looks like a polliwagon

83 or 93 what’s 10 years?

Manwell, you are up against it here. Your question is ridiculously vague and you specifically removed any analysis of science and that invites sarcasm, humour or possibly an answer as if it were a cryptic crossword clue. If you expected a reasoned response your questions are going to need to take account of your audience. If you want something a little more thoughtful on learning to fly hers my view as a former instructor. You start to learn to fly when you suddenly realise you’ve been doing your best to kill yourself and have only survived due to the instructor.

Throw lots of money at it. Works with qantas and ultralight equally.

If that is the direction ELAAA want to push for that would be a mistake in my opinion. But there are some things that I think could be benefitcial: Moving RAAus, ASRA and HGFA aircraft (all currently not using VH-) onto the VH register would be of benefit ... its just a relatively simple thing ... and would provide consistency across all Australian aircraft ... but all owners details would then be available through the CASA registry and you could decide if that was good, bad or indifferent. Moving all pilots to ICAO licencing would be a disaster ... Australian aviation medicals are not even aligned with ICAO and the ICAO training requirements are beyond what is really needed for day VFR recreational flying. Moving to have a CASA non-ICAO licence issued to HGFA/RAAus and ASRA pilots on the recommendation of their training organisation being RAAus/HGFA or ASRA would be a positive move - many other countries issue non-ICAO licences to microlight/ultralight pilots so its not even particularly novel . Membership and adherence to the ops requirements of the orgs would still exist so CASA would be doing very little new/different but would get a lot better oversight of exactly how many pilots and aircraft are out there without having to go through associations. The added benefit is that Australian sports aircraft and pilots will be viewed more favourably. Trust me, its a very uphill battle discussing RAAus certificates and registrations with a foreign aviation authority to obtain permissions etc . Been there and done that - took two years. BUT with a non-ICAO licence and aircraft but with G- on the side it was very easy to discuss with other national authorities rights to fly and overfly ... got permission from 4 African nations in under 2 weeks and they didn't even charge me.

I do not like to speculate - my comments are on the pics and video only. 1. the size of the piece puled from the water is approx the size of the wing outboard of the lift strut attach 2. the video (while blurry) shows to my eye two stub wings of approx same size but not full correct wingspan and not much at the rear for horizontal stab. My interpretation of the final point of crash is that the two outboard wings are missing from the strut outward and that the horizontal stab (both sides) are not there. How it got into that situation is conjecture and as a former jumper and current pilot I can see in theory how this may have occured. The only comment I will make is that if the aircraft is that out of control before the door is open its entirely possible to have it come from 12,000+ feet without the jumpers being able to get out. Very sad incident and hopefully the sequence of events that resulted in the deaths will become clear to the investigators.

The decision of the board is that option 1 will be followed - just the single word change - so it will appear in the August issue of the RAAus magazine. I will open a separate thread for candidates statements/discussion and will post my statement and will engage with queries etc that people may have through there.

Thanks Ian. I am under no illusions that IF I am elected I will probably be at odds in some areas with current members of the board and/or management. As for gag that really will will not be an issue. I accept the requirements of board solidarity when a decision has been made. However where policy has not been documented and board decisions made I am and will remain at liberty to discuss, offer opinions publicly and canvas views that I may or may not take with me if I am on the board. 750 words is not a huge length for a statement in an election but it is a practical length when it has to be published and digested by members. During the election I am perfectly happy to engage with people and expand/clarify position as I can I I intend to do this openly. It may be through here if that’s acceptable or I may open a seperate website to document my positions on areas. I will decide that as and when I have actual queues and questions to answer but it one thing that’s certain - if I am on the board I will remain as open and communicative to members and others interested in flying as legally allowed.

I will neither laugh nor cry. There are NO written rules for the RAAus elections. I have asked for them every year since the company was created and again yesterday asked M Linke for them so that I could review what’s happening with what the rules are. The board/CEO position is that the information pack and the emails are the AEC acceptable process. Personally I expected documented rules setting out items like how communication it to be made. How many days nominations are open. What to do in a tie. What to do if there is potentially defamatory materials presented etc. if actual rules existed as members we could hold management to account to them and I would not this year be in a position where the board appears to be making up rules as they go along to address an issue that they see. Frankly not not happy with core processes and documents within RAAus and the direction we have moved over the past 6-7 years which is why I’ve nominated this year.

Yes. I had already messaged Ian and asked permission to publish here if there was an election before I knew there was an issue with the statement. Once i I know what RAAus are going to publish I will publish my statement here in any event. From the discussions today with RAAus there is no issue from the board that my statement is defamatory or leaves the board or company open to legal challenge only that they consider that my opinions are not factually correct in their opinion. I’m perfectly happy to have my statement before all on this forum during the election process and am accepting that members may well consider that I’m wrong in my views and vote accordingly. That’s what an election is all about

Update Following further conversations with RAAus I was offered the opportunity to amend my election statement. I thanked the board for the opportunity to amend my election statement after closing date of the nominations and did agree that 1 word could be changed to clarify part of my opinion. I feel I need to let members know this as the election statement I now have with RAAus is not exactly as per my original lodged statement. However, this was not sufficient and the board are further considering if they will publish my statement and if they do how it will appear. Their nominated options - at their decision - will be: 1. publish as agreed (1 word changed from that provided) 2. edit the statement to remove what they find offensive and state that they have edited it 3. publish as agreed (1 word changed from that provided) but also publish a board response in the magazine against the statement I hope they go for 1. because 2. and 3. to me look a lot like you can say whatever you like as your opinion provided we agree with it but if we do not we will say its not ok. I'll update when I hear further.

Question. Have other nominated candidates been asked to edit or change their election statements? I find it odd that an election statement has to be acceptable to the board to be printed in the magazine and I would appreciate hearing from any other nominating candidate as to what if anything they have been asked to change. Please private message me if you have nominated and been asked to change your statement. Note - I will not be discussing here what I have been asked to change - I am only interested in knowing if others have been asked to change their statements as I have.

I’m sure we’ve had the humbert before ...

Well the dash 8 coming back from Sydney this week was not it. If I’m not flying then pretty much anything from airbus wins. I love the A380 and A350. Better than anything from Boeing for me.

Just a dash 8 that’s been on the rack ?

And the cdi boxes have a long history of vibration cracking the wires as they enter the box ... not able to repair so it’s replace as they fail. Expensive but hey you can run an ic engine without that ignition element.

The aerofoil on the nearly all the thrusters is pretty high lift so unless you are looking at an early T83/84 single seater without any lower battons you are better off just checking your battons agains the correct profile and then reducing drag as much as you are allowed. In 'as much as you are allowed' I am really pointing out that if a two seater and its got 25- reg then you cannot legally change the aerofoil nor add much in the way of drag reduction unless thats already been CAR35 or equivalent approved unless you are prepared to wage war and spend money on the RAAus MARAP process. If its single seat 10- reg then I'd still just focus on checking profile against the original and living with it. Edit - ok - checked your posts and pics of your restoration you seem to have a nice looking T83 single seater. Without opening up the wing skins and sewing in new batton pockets you are going to be limited to the flat bottom section you have ... the T85 changed the wing to have more battons closer together and full lower battons so the section holds much better. Without doing a lot of redesign work to effectively put a new wing on the airframe you will be limited on what you can do. The T83 will not climb really well at high weights because the lower surface of the wing will press up into the wing with the airpressure - you end up with an undercambered wing section thats lower lift than you would like - but it still climbs well enough - mine did and that was with my fat bum and a tired Robin 440 spinning an original plastic ultraprop