dodo

I think it would be brave, at least, to claim, some months afterward, that a motion was not passed, when the board has not brought the matter to the attention of members. It would then be obvious that whoever was responsible for managing the election had some serious questions to answer. I don't think we could blame anyone other than the board for the way a motion at a general meeting was handled. And the minutes? "Ummm....." is the best answer we could expect. I don't think anyone would like the consequences of that. dodo

My experience of the administrative staff has been limited, but they are very efficient. My certificate came through in a couple of days, and the only time I rang them with a query, I received a simple, useful, & courteous answer in a phone call that lasted about 90 seconds. We don't have a problem there. dodo

Anyone think it a bit odd that CASA pays RA about $100,000 to regulate/administer pilots and aircraft, and now we have had to hire an ex-CASA bloke who will probably cost a bit more than $100,000, to simply manage the aircraft registrations for some months? This, to me, suggests we need to look over the regulatory requirement, and possibly re-negotiate with CASA. $100,000 is about what is costs to maintain one (moderately paid) staff member for a year (once you include salary, super, rent, office equipment, telephone and electricity etc.), and I don't think anyone would suggest RA should be able to self administer on one staff member. If RA has to have hard negotiations with CASA about registration, perhaps they should bring up the issues of regulatory complexity, and what that inevitably costs. I can't see CASA giving money away easily, but they might be a bit more thoughtful in the demands they put on RA-Aus, if RA could itemise what a particular requirement will cost. dodo

What about transfers?

Well, that negates the need for an update from RA today!

Turbo, I take your point on the Board being a board of management, but I still think a separation between administration (the employees), and oversight and direction (board) would make the role of each clearer, both to themselves and to the membership. As to external review by CASA, I think an independent reviewer might have pre-empted problems with CASA (might not catch everything). Whether we call this external review or internal audit is not so important. If RA-Aus were unwilling to take on CASA requirements, the board should have informed the membership - whereas effectively, CASA informed the membership! Which bring us to your point on information, with which I totally agree. How do we get the board to be open and informative? A general meeting is likely to be adversarial, which won't open peoples minds. How do you get through to the board that problems like the junior membership issue are less damaging if explained? I felt the presidents explanation was acceptable on that issue, despite disagreeing with his point of view, and being unhappy with the communication debacle. How can we get it understood that mistakes and problems are acceptable, so long as we are informed? dodo

Andy, I think the process re-engineering is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The first thing we need is someone responsible for day to day administration, who would have picked up on administration issues, and managed these. So I suggest the board should not have an executive, but the administrator (an employe) should manage this. This _should_ have been the CEO or whatever the real constitution calls that position. The board should be direction and oversight, not executive. I think this has been most of the problem in the past. Secondly, I think the insurance problem reflects the uneasy position RA-Aus has as a CASA mandated regulator, and an association of people who like little aeroplanes. CASA probably would not have been sued in the way RA-Aus has been, partly because of size and access to Commonwealth resources, and partly because as a pure regulator, it is harder to criticise, as it can claim to merely implement the instructions of the parliament (I was only following orders, mein Fuhrer!). On this issue, I think RA-Aus should talk to CASA, and see what can be done in the Deed of Arrangement. This might take years and much effort, but would be worthwhile - and this is a genuine board responsibility! Although CASA would be reluctant to go through the process of changing the Deed, they would be even more reluctant to take on the regulatory task should RA be sued into administration and liquidation. Otherwise I agree with your assessment. I think if we were to put such changes to the board or the membership, it would be well to keep it very simple. Perhaps we should just push for three things: information to the membership, separation of administration and oversight/direction/policy, and some form of external review/audit. dodo

SAJabflyer, that is a fair and good summary of the forums use and purpose, and RA board members may use or ignore the forum as they choose. However, my experience on contacting a board member was less satisfactory than yours. I saw on the RA-Aus website that registrations have been suspended, and I contacted a board member, they told me to check the website for updates... And the board gets cranky about rumours? Its the only information we get! dodo

czechmate, despite what we have previously been told, it looks like the problem is not just with LSAs, dodo

I am in Canberra, but I don't own a pitchfork, or know where I could get one. I could knock up a torch out of a stick and some engine oil and old rags, and surround the RA office. I imagine I would be a large and threatening mob of one (1). If they are still working in at the RA office, they could get a laugh at watching me surround the building on my own, waving a handmade torch. Maybe I'll just go to the Emmylou Harris show instead. dodo PS The RA site has been updated, but nothing much new. Some very vague lack of detail, and a meeting with CASA tomorrow. I very much doubt CASA will undo their direction in a hurry. Even if total agreement is reached, CASA would want to see convincing action or detail, then think about it for a few days.

GFA don't issue licences either...but close enough, as do the HGFA, the balloon, gyro and parachute people. I think there are 6 delegated bodies. Gliders are VH registered, but I think the GFA does the checking and regulation to recommend the registration, or something along those lines. Balloons are VH too, but parachutes are pretty much nothing (or RA or HGFA if powered). dodo

Volksy, thanks for that. From a first reading of the coroners report it sounds very strange. It reads as if they screwed up the landing, but the coroner sort of skims over the whole landing bit, except to say that many agreed it was a reasonable spot, and should have been OK (or messy but survivable)...which leaves lots of questions unanswered. However, as you point out it looks like they just flew into the ground, which is very odd, and leaves a lot of other questions. Either way, I think the coroners fixation on the cause of the engine failure is reasonable, but I am surprised there was no further interest. The implication is fatality is likely or assured after engine failure, which is not so, and the coroner sort of admits that by discussing the forced landing potential of the paddock they picked. I think the issues around the previous owner may have distracted scrutiny from the actual event. dodo

I think the "no renewal registrations" is CASA politely saying: "You have consistently failed to address the issues. Now, take your time - we don't care how long it takes, but you will now care, because as it drags on, your members are not going to be happy". It is hard on individual members, but CASAs remit is safety, not being nice. And they have given RA-Aus three chances, so we can't complain we weren't warned. Except we were not warned, because our board doesn't tell us anything we need to know...but that is our problem, not CASAs problem. Self-administration has failed on this, both to CASA, and to the membership. We need to get a full and complete explanation from the board, of the problem, its origins, how is has been addressed to date, and how it will now be addressed. Recriminations can come after we have a credible plan to deal with the issue. dodo

Ultralights, if that was true, why haven't HGFA registrations been shut down as well? This looks like the CASA RA-Aus audit issue, as only RA has been affected (to the best of my knowledge) dodo

Ian is right. What disturbs me is that as usual, the board has told us nothing beyond "some issues with aircraft registration", blamed ona past employee. But the problems still exist. What is going on? As usual, all we are told is a short statement that registrations cannot be issued or renewed. I think a more complete explanation of what is wrong with RA registrations is required. I am also a bit surprised RA-AUS hasn't managed its relationship with CASA better - this is effectively a "third warning" becoming a final warning with decisive action. Why couldn't RA-AUS address the issues at the first or second warning? CASA has a long record of trying to resolve issues with discussion and patience up to a point, where they suddenly drop the discussion and just act. ...and again, what are the bloody issues? On a more positive note, I think you could probably get an aircraft at a good price right now - just look for a very sensible, 10, 19, 25 or 28-rego which doesn't have any characteristics likely to be contentious! dodo

The Komet was used in a speed record attempt. They towed it up to altitude behind a Me110, then it separated, lit the rocket, hit a bit over 1000km/h, and encountered severe mach buffet (flutter on the trailing edge of the wing - I think it lost a few bits off the wing in the process), but if I recall, survived. Definitely not mach capable without destructive damage - although possibly survivable. Fuel was RFNA (Red Fuming Nitric Acid) and a hydrogen peroxide of some sort. Either would dissolve the pilot. The two fuels were hypergolic meaning they ignited (exploded) on contact with eachother. I have a friend whose father came out to Oz working with an English aircraft firm at WRE and Woomera, with a pile of Walter engines from the Komet and Natter programs. Even test firing the engines the engines remotely from behind a concrete wall, they lost several people. If the motor misbehaved, or didn't fire, they had a mirror to look over the wall with. They got careless over time, and with a misfired motor, stood and peered over the wall one day. The motor exploded and removed their heads. Not very cheery, but fascinating, which is possibly why they killed so many people experimenting and using them, dodo

Thanks Volksy. Interesting - much as M61 points out - if you can avoid the costs and issues around where to fly from (plane in a trailer and fly from a mates field, for example), that can remove a fair amount of annual outgoings. And keep the capital component low, both for interest/opportunity costs and for insurance, unless you really need the expensive aircraft, in which case GA looks good. dodo

Volksy, what does it cost to keep an aircraft at Goulburn now? Hangarage, landing fees, airside fees? And is likely to to be relatively stable? I would hate to be vulnerable to further pricing changes or changes in conditions. dodo

Kaz, so what is the difference between a deed of arrangement and a contract? And what allows CASA to pass their legal authority outside their own organisation? dodo

Turbo, RA-Aus is delegated by CASA to regulate us. CASA could retract the delegation. This would leave RA-Aus intact as a club, but having no regulatory authority, an simply an association of flyers (effectively, the AUF as a lobby and club). CASA would then have to regulate us, and I think (but don't know), that existing certificates, registration etc. would remain valid unless CASA explicitly decided otherwise. CASA would obviously not pay RA-Aus for the work RA-Aus currently do for them, and CASA would then do themselves, but I suspect that saving wouldn't cover the costs. In any case, I imagine CASA are far happier keeping a watching brief on RA-Aus, rather than regulate the small fry themselves - otherwise, why would they ever have delegated the authority? Also note that RA-Aus is only one of the six delgated authorities. CASA haven't previously pulled their delegation from any of these. My conclusion is that CASA would only take over if they felt there was a real threat to safety. If they did, the consequences are unguessable, as the situation would need to be pretty dire before they did so. dodo

Keith when you mention the views of "hangar experts",I would make a couple of points: - when the board gives us information, we will, as Keith suggests see a more balanced picture. The only problem is that they don't tell the membership anything relevant. Haven't! Don't! Won't! - if you want an example of why I doubt the board, who on God's earth presents a set of financial statements without the notes? Without note 1, you don't even know the basis for the statements to compare with previous years. Without the other notes, you have so little detail it is barely worth reading. And the president was recently the treasurer, fixing the mess left when the previous treasurer resigned! I would have expected better. As a "hangar expert", I have a well-informed contempt for financial statements provided without the accompanying notes. - the episode at Temora involving the Rat showed a complete disregard for membership requests for information. - the issues around insurance and aircraft registration continue, yet all I know as a normal member is that they exist. What are the problems - they appear significant, possibly a threat to my flying, but no information is ever forthcoming from the board. Why? So, my best guess would be: 1 If CASA pull the plug, it will likely be for some long-standing, long-building issue that the membership were never informed of. 2 CASA don't want to run little, light aviation, they want someone else to do it - but do it well. 3 Right now, the mess regarding aircraft registration, insurance, junior flyers, and other issues seems like poor administration to both CASA and membership. ...but CASA can probably get information and explanations, while the membership can't. So RA continues, so far, but you end up with criticism of the board. Not surprising, really. dodo PS your opinion of the military rather surprised me - I have found them 50% very good, 50% idiots with attitude. I don't know which our president is, but I am starting to suspect the latter, especially after the debacle of Ian's membership, which would be criticised in a suburban crochet club.

The ERSA entry for YBWN implies the existence of a CASA approval of some sort. The <100g is a nice exception which really allows for paper planes and little stuff - but it allows a lot of freedom. Flying a tiny Toys R Us polystyrene RC plane doesn't justify reading CAOs and CARs! Most RC models are well above 100g - so 400' altitude limit and 3nm from an airfield. Or just go a long way away...how do you measure 400' with any accuracy, and how hard should you try when you are 20 miles from the nearest airfield? If you relying on visual control, you probably won't go too high or far anyway. POV models would be different, but your radio range is probably a few thousand feet. If you push the limits, you lose your plane, without any CASA intervention required! dodo

From the ERSA for YBWN: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.Agricultural OPS take place HJ WI 5NM RAD up to 500FT AGL. 2.Model ACFT operating WI the AD locality The CASA advisory is useful (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/101/101c01.pdf). Basically, if you stay under 100grms, you are fine. Otherwise, join a club, or go along way from airfields. dodo

It's a fourteen hour drive for me, so I doubt I will be at the AGM. But could someone ask the board why they NEVER tell the membership anything that they need to know about? Examples (should they be necessary!): -LSA registration issues - what is the problem, why haven't the member ship been informed of anything beyond that "there are registration issues with some types"? -Insurance issues - what issues are there, and why? Again, we just get told "there are problems with insurance". Not even what sort of insurance! - litigation. Who is litigating, or who are we litigating? And why? Never mentioned by the board, just appears as an expense, unexplained. dodo

You can reasonably easily get an exemption to go above 400' so long as you are a fair way from anything (clubs sometimes organise this). I think flying within 3nm of _any_ ALA would be a much bigger ask. dodo