coljones

The article was in a NewsLtd publication. While the paper's management would cover up a developer "having a go" on a 747 because he was a developer and developers are the salt of the earth, wonderful people, god is on their side and they can do no harm maybe the journo felt the need to tell a bit of the story, something about ethics. Some people are incapable of chewing gum and walking - some are just incapable of even chewing gum, some people give a gun to a child and some people hand over controls of an aeroplane to whoever.

Shags' new thread is here http://recreationalflying.com/threads/why-i-will-be-voting-against-the-new-constitution.147715/ Shags' problem clause is - "14.3 If the Directors reject an application, the Company must write to the applicant as soon as possible to tell them that their application has been rejected, but does not have to give reasons." He also alludes to the provision that membership can be terminated if money is owed to RAA - No timeframe is provided. Most member based organisation prescribe some type of latitude to receiving benefits and usually don't start member termination procedures unless a member has been unfinancial for more than 3 months. If I owned shares and the director of the company upset me I could flog the shares. In the case of Not for profits members have no proprietary interests in the company and no shares to flog. At the moment the non-proprietorial interest that members have in RAA is around $200/member. Being chucked out on one's ear at the behest of the board without being able to enjoy this non-proprietorial interest is a bit rough. I am underwhelmed by registering Not for Profits under the Corporations Act which is designed for profit making corporations. It is mainly used by Not for profits who want to keep the membership highly limited or keep them away from the levers of control. If this is the quality of output from the subcommittee after a couple of years one has to wonder what they were doing.

How we get over the results bit. if you look at motor vehicles, particularly trucks, they have become much safer for the occupants but they continue to run over kids, crash into the middle of houses, clean up lines of pushbikes and when they fall over, pour litres of fuel over innocent bystanders. Death lurks around every corner and it is not always the perp who collects the reward. My big problem with the stats is that I don't believe that RAA has a clue about hours and movements. It is my understanding that the records in the office were a dog's breakfast and despite many offers from members in Canberra to help out checking the records during THE CRISIS none, or very little was accepted. It proved a herculean task just to get the paperwork assembled let alone analysed. I am not sure how fictitious the numbers were but to use them as the basis of the RATE/hour of failure would appear to be fanciful. I am far from being a Jab hater. I actually like them, they do what I want them to do. It is probably because the maintenance men in charge do a very good job on them. There are some maintainers out there that you wouldn't let loose on a house brick and they are usually the ones who scream the loudest when they break something or do (or not do) something which causes an engine to "grenade". I will be back in the Jab next week - I might even fly the C152 and PA28 as well (now where can I find a C140 near Sydney?)

For any ASIC you need a legitimate purpose to get one. In the case of CASA, in order to exercise the privileges of your licence, you need to have a valid medical. No medical, no independant flying so you can't demonstrate the need for an ASIC (a need discount coffee from M at KSA won't cut it). In the case of RAA you won't get an ASIC unless you state a valid need (I have had my forms returned because I forgot to give the need) If you are an RAA member you can live on an RAA ASIC and use it for CASA. The downside of an RAA ASIC are the restricted group of people (CFIs, JPs, Board Members) who can witness an application. The CASA witness group is much wider.

And there probably should be a review/audit of the reported and recorded hours and movements of each engine across the fleet. It is one thing to count dodgy faults but if the fleet total hours and movements are also suspect then the resultant stats are rubbish.

Don't forget to pick up CAGIT on the way through.

There are many organisations with constrained membership rules such as "Primary Ethics", "HCF" etc. There are also a number of organisations that require the serving out of a probationary period of a number of years, there are others such as political parties that won't even enroll you unless have the right handshake and others that place almost insurmountable hurdles unless you are part of the "Chairman's Team". In some cases you couldn't care less but in other cases you need to be a member or subscriber, in which case the full democratic rights should prevail. Any organisation that constrains democracy isn't democratic IMHO. I never liked the fact that "The Readers Digest Association" could call itself an Association when clearly it wasn't.

More than 20kg of baggage? Bottles of plonk from the trip to Coonawarra?

The fatal accidents in '13 was the lowest while the fatal accident rate was average. This seems to imply that departures (or hours) in '13 were lower than previous years.

Sorry Nobody. Today I went flying an LSA55. The slower it went the quicker it fell out of the air on final, bugger!!!

wonderful language, this english. when you say "faster" do you mean "it lands at a greater velocity" or "lands sooner"?

The supplier could not bring them up to spec and the contract was cancelled on mutual terms - I am not sure if the Oz government took a bath but clearly in early 2007 they were uninspired with the capability of the supplier to deliver something that the Navy could reliably use. It appears that all the planes were returned to the vendor.

I prefer the Police check to the "good guy with a gun" or "caught with your pants down" alternatives. Might not be comprehensive but does scrape a lot of scum off the walls.

Of course but I do Oxymorons much better.

If nothing it might impress on parents that the quads and trikes are deadly and that they should lock away the keys and exercise a higher degree of supervision about their use. We have adults around the city (and country) who buy their kids mini motor bikes and let them loose on roads, footpaths and in parks

There are grubs out there who prey upon old people, young people, the meek, the halt and feeble minded and aircraft owners. They might be kitchen only staff this week but they will use all their psychopathic and sociopathic skills to move up the food chain without detection. It's tough but all people working with people at risk really do need to have a police check - might not uncover anything but might discourage the bad people (and the heroes and those looking for an OAM)

Broad flies a plane and is about 40. I don't know if Roy flies a plane. He is about 25. Those politicians who sail in submarines might be attacking quietly and with stealth but might, also, be skiving off.

I was thinking of Andrew Broad, actually the current Member for Mallee in western Victoria. He flies a Brumby. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/mp-andrew-broad-is-the-flyin-pollie/news-story/800dc41fd0d584e8428677a353d3a691

The young bloke who got elected to Malcolm Frasers old seat, Wannon, has been very quiet.

I went to school in the 50s and 60s and they were the most over regulated, petty, vicious systems in the world. Want to get ahead - play rugby league FFS what a bunch of wankers.

is it going back to Orange?

how is the c140 going?

there is workers comp for workplace injuries.

I think Skidmore has some engineering creds - you don't go test flying without them. United States Navy Test Pilot School Flight Test, Successfully completed 1985 – 1985 RAAF Academy BSc, Grad Dip Mil Av 1977 – 1980 Dr Jonathan Aleck is a lawyer and is Lee Ungermann's boss

Taking responsibility for your own aircraft might mean handing the maintenance of it over to someone qualified to do it properly. There are some who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time who should be barred from being within 500 metres of a plane. Care and feeding is not a trivial matter and unless an owner or pilot is 100% sure of what they are doing then they should hand the maintenance over. RAA is not child's play and shouldn't be treated as such.