coljones

Sorry Don but I beg to differ. Quite a lot of organisations have gone under because of the B.Com, B.Bus, LLB, MBA, AICD people at their pointy end. I think you will find that there are a lot of professionally qualified people from other professions doing sterling work on a wide range of commercial and not for profit organisations around the world. You might not be personally disparaging me but I think that the boards, large and small, work I have done over the last 40 odd years was of significant benefit to the organisations I have served. Some of my best friends are lawyers. One, in particular, one a board I currently serve on, is absolutely first rate mainly because he thinks outside the square and aims to understand the business and come up with novel solutions. No, he is not an aviation lawyer. I must give a lot of credit to your achievements, twice, as Treasurer, and to Jim Tatlock. If either of you opened your mouths on treasury matter it was to speak sense. Having a B.Com doesn't always guarantee that outcome. Not having a B.Com doesn't indicate that the treasurer is a gibbering idiot. Just because a board member represents the aspirations of his/her electorate to the board doesn't mean that they are bound to support the proposal, all things considered. The board members might advocate but must, at the end of the day, vote in support of the organisation, All of its members, and the rights of other stakeholders (including staff and those we have commercial and legal relations with). Having advocates on the board is not a bad thing. Keep well

you can have a meeting, which can be broadcast, and then after an ensuing debate, you can have a postal ballot. Directed proxies only work with an informed electorate - unless of course, like those "grown up" companies, you can con the mums and dads into giving open proxies to the chair where they can be used to support the power block. Think Whitlam and the NRMA. By issuing a ballot paper it forces the rank and file to make a decision - yes, no, do nothing - how much more democratic can you get.

My reading of the draft suggests that there are NO postal ballots, just the flawed proxy at GM meeting problems we are saddled with. Can you dig out the drafting guidelines used to nut out V1, before the lawyers got to it. Leaving aside Spencer who else is on the sub committee, and their qualifications?

Not off at a tangent. The first stat quoted by RAA was 198/10k. How far did RAA spread that?

Do some flying across a range of planes first. Do you have an RAA pilot Cert? You should also check out Dave's Flying School and the Sydney Recreational Flying Club at The Oaks. Both have a lot of maintenance and operational experience on a range of RAA engines and airframes.

I can't see a decimal point in the 198/10,000 stat. That would make it 19,800/1,000,000. 3 different figures 198/10,000 => 19,800/1,000,000 1.98/10,000 => 198/1,000,000 Or 1.98/1,000,000 Were the dodgy RAA calcs the basis of the CASA action?

"still lurks around on the fringes"? Is this code for a man in a raincoat?

It's all a bit like global warming - CASA is saying that they know nothing but their mind is still made up.

I suggested that they move the Incorporated Association to the NSW jurisdiction and get a solicitor (or the local fish shop) in Queanbeyan to be the registered office (if need be) - they don't need a registered office, they just need a public officer (over 18, ordinarily living in NSW) - the public officer does not need to be a member of the committee (Board) but is the prime signatory in regard to the registration. An incorporated association may become registered under the Corporations Act so it can carry on business in other states or territories outside of its home jurisdiction without needing to register as a company.

And the differences in obligations and penalties for officeholders under the various incorporated associations acts are? And the policemen to ensure compliance under the Corporations Act and Incorporated Associations Acts are? And the method of running postal ballots under the Corporations Act and Incorporated Associations Act (ACT v's say NSW) is? I would have expected a lot more narrative associated with the draft. I am particularly disappointed that the review committee didn't take up the issue of postal ballots and seems to have come up with exactly the same impediments that we currently suffer from under the ACT Act.

" Qualifications and occupation before entering Federal Parliament Police officer 1976-91. Grazier from 1979. Managing Director, Jilbridge Pty Ltd and NewLands Group Holdings Pty Ltd 1991-2013."

Give Pauline Hansen a call - she will work up some figures for you.

You forgot the one - PURPOSE "Drive down wages" and SKILLS "451 Visas - no real identifiable skills in demand but an acute need to drive down wages" The figures under "Skill - Employers Sponsored" are dubious as the aim in a large number of cases is not to import skills unavailable here but to displace workers and replace them with lower paid, and in some celebrated and other disguised cases, seriously underpaid workers. If one can't get people to pick fruit it might mean that the pay, while legal, is unconscionably low, and the conditions deplorable.

If you are a professional you can get access to Professional Indemnity Schemes. You may need to belong to a professional body or scheme, be accredited and ascribe to a code of conduct and be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Such as RPEng (Q), CPEng etc.

Either there is a presumption that there was an "issue" to be resolved or a desire on the part of CASA to cause some pain (in response to shrill grandstanding by a few)

The incremental cost between the basic price of OzRunways and the premium version is bugger all compared to adding them on one by one.

There is no-one from Syd on the board and hasn't been for quite a while.

The amateurs almost brought RAA to its knees a couple of years ago. The belt around the head they got at the extraordinary meeting brought out some cockiness on the board which was only fixed by some strategic resignations, dismissals, and new board members. The next election should see the last of the bad old days out the door (I hope). I however don't see that the Big End of Town solution has much to offer itself as the BEoT hasn't covered itself in glory in recent times. Honest members with a care for the membership will probably produce a board that works.

which is why you replace single instances of face to face with more frequent phone ins. But I can't see why RAA should have fewer face to face but probably need more phone ins. I was under the understanding that the board meetings were long (3 days) and only every 6 months. This is an strong indication that the interactions need to be more frequent and members better prepared. With more frequent meetings those issues that come up on the plane home can be dealt with at the next meeting - brain farts in meetings have a tendency to cause the meeting to disappear down burrows leaving the staff and exec under directed and with a much freer hand do what they want to do between meetings.

We are frequently told of judicial activism and judges turning the law on its head. Could Berryman v Wentworth Shire be another case?

I don't have a problem flying a Jabiru - I do have a problem with the CASA instrument (but the weather in Sydney has been crap in January so a flyout in any direction does not guarantee a return anytime soon). It is not safety that has reduced the hours but the imposition of some rather paranoid conditions on Jabirus. Idiots!!

You can't fly into Bankstown in a Jabiru - per the instrument.

Effectively, we can't fly north from Prospect (Sydney) in a Jabiru. We could fly Victor 1 by first flying south to Appin and east to the coast and then flying coastal at 500/1000 feet. Or via the Blue Mountains, Rylestone, Denman, backhaul to Maitland and then up the Willy lane. But then again I think it is time my sister visited me.

In which case you would ground the Lightwing Airframe not the Rotax engine - unless it was failures in the Rotax 2 stroke engines - in which case replacing the Rotax with a Jabiru engine would be a really good idea. The CASA restriction is all about the engine independant of the airframe. It is really good that Jabiru has a great airframe (and an engine) that I, personally, am happy to fly in. An ordinary engine in the wrong plane, in the wrong place, in the wrong hands is not a good idea. A good engine under the same circumstances can be a life saver which is why we should be focussing, in the current situation, on just the engine to ensure that it is being dealt a fair deck and not being raped by dodgy stats by those with agendas. Concentrating just on deaths is not fair to the Jabiru plane and engine nor to the PIC and his passengers.

Fatality stats are an issue but failure rates are more important. The failure of an engine will leave the PIC to manage the situation all the way down to the ground and will tax their ability. It would be unfair to hand an inexperienced PIC a situation that may be beyond their capability, even with the best crashcage in the business. Not all Jabiru engines power Jabiru airframes, not all Jabiru engines are piloted by PICs with high hours and extensive training, not all Jabiru engines fail in a perfect place (some might even fail at the end of a strip adjacent to a 12 lane expressway with a hospital and high school and a beach at the end. Not all Jabiru engines are maintained by experts (some Jabiru engines are maintained by people who are not fit to put petrol in the tanks). The most useful statistic to me, BEFORE any other is quoted, is the FAILURE RATE PER HOUR or the FAILURE RATE PER MOVEMENT (both subject to fudgeing). Deaths only matter when you want to examine Airframe, competency, environmental and other issues which com into play, almost, independently to engine failure. It would, therefore, be kind of you if you redid your stats based on engine failures alone (running out of petrol is not a failure, running out of oil is but not if the PIC forgot to check) Cheers Col