dodo

At least now you can claim it has been satisfactorily crash-tested. I suggest a marketing slogan along the lines of "No animals or crash test dummies were harmed in the testing of this product" dodo

True. But why answer with "I'll get back to you"? It sounds like "I need to take inztruction on this qvestion" ( preferably spoken in a Russian accent!) dodo

Was the question really that complicated? Why not just answer with your straightforward opinion? dodo

We are all over this ordure To those who say you must earn your right to an opinion by standing for the board, I suggest the following: - explain why you don't listen to those who have stood for the board. - explain why you can comment when you haven't stood for the board - explain to those who volunteered their effort last November where you were? I spent a week in the office as a volunteer. Where were you? If the board- or the executive -had done their job, we would not be in this mess. dodo

I imagine that is legally correct. However, in my experience dealing with government organisations like CASA, they often think the rest of the world is motivated by money, while they are purely interested in their higher goal. They then sometimes take a view that influencing one arrangement (the CAR & CAO responsibilities) with another arrangement (the contractual), is a an effective way of "influencing change" in a pure and idealistic manner. However, as you have pointed out previously, RA needs CASA's confidence to continue to be allowed to register aircraft, which is probably dependant on the Deed (I assume this, as the Deed is not available to us as it is commercial in confidence...which implies some commercial confidences...between a government owned regulator and a not for profit!? What commercial confidences???!!!??!) At which point, I am back to my usual position of asking why everything has to be secret... dodo

Correct

The ACT Act is intended for clubs and associations. These often have dissension and bickering, just some more infrequent than others. We have breached the Act in the past by not issuing minutes on time, not publishing financial statements on time, but nothing too extreme (I know these are bad, but plenty of other associations aren't that good either). If what you suggest is true, the Prez may resign. Steve Runciman did that. The board just elects another. It is all just as adult and mature as our federal politicians, except asking for a photo of the Prez knitting a kangaroo for the next royal baby would be ...a bit bizarre, whereas Julia just makes it look... a bit bizarre. The real problem is that board, for whatever reasons, is dysfunctional, has been dysfunctional, and continues to be dysfunctional. Despite promises to a disgruntled membership at the EGM, they don't communicate, haven't changed their ways, and still don't get it! This may destroy RA if it continues long enough. I don't think we are screwed yet, but how long can this go on for? We keep screwing up, our board don't respond to their own membership, or CASA, or anyone. Sooner or later this will all crash down. We still have time, but we don't know how much. And the board still cannot cooperate with each other, or represent their membership. dodo PS ...umm...yes, I am a little frustrated about all this. Sorry.

Turbs, a board of management is feature of incorporated associations, which is the legal basis for RA-Aus. It is not a construct of RA-Aus. Note that RA-Aus exists under and because of ACT legislation, not CASA fiat. Having said that, Dafydd's comments regarding the utility or function of RA-Aus is to meet CASA requirements to let us fly, we will need to comply with both the Act, and CASA's requirements in the Deed of Agreement, whatever that says (unfortunately, that is not a public document). dodo

Separate the first two from the last three. 1 Set out that the first two be adopted now; and 2 that the last three be addressed by such and such a date, by someone, with an outcome of plan presented, constitutional change presented for a vote (deliverable, person responsible, date.) I think getting the first two set as an operating model is critical, but it might be vulnerable to sabotage by the board (or elements of the board, or just board infighting). Maybe you could set out explicitly that the current executive model (Prez, Sec, Treasurer) are only oversight, not daily administration? Or would this contravene the intent of the existing constitution? dodo

Dafydd and others, I don't disagree with the focus on compliance with what is effectively a critical contract, but I would point out that there is more than one way for RA-Aus to effect it's own demise. While a contract is important, the existence of RA is under ACT legislation, with which we are legally obliged to comply. So if RA-Aus set itself up as an Incorporated Association, it had better behave like one. (We were not in compliance on a couple of issues at one point - to the extent some very grumpy members were apparently threatening to -or actually- reporting RA to the ACT Dept Justice. I personally doubt that the issues were serious enough to get anything happening, if indeed it was more than empty threats, but don't think we can do what we like without consequences). Likewise, if some of the issues arising over the last year result in serious legal action, that could sink us as well. If some very aggrieved aircraft owner sues and wins... then if I was a board member, I would not want to be in a position where it looked like I had been ignoring all except CASA compliance. Obviously, CASA compliance is the biggest risk at the moment, but don't think we can ignore all other obligations - and governance is one of those that may put you in, or keep you out of jail -if bad things happen, dodo

The Wright patent was about roll control, but the question was is the importance of roll control a patentable innovation, or was it the method of roll control that was the innovation. Curtiss tried to wriggle around the issue by inventing a method of roll control that didn't rely on shifting wing shape (warping or ailerons both are attached to the wing and alter the effective shape of the wing). Putting a miniature controllable wing between the biplane wings avoided this. However, the squabble went on.... The big fight in the US was between the Wrights and Curtiss, because the rest of the world went on flying and developing, and avoided the US, where your aeroplane might be impounded subject to a court case, if you imported it to demonstrate it, as happened at least once. The Wrights did little flying, putting their efforts into selling their innovation, and suing anyone else who flew. dodo

The US government entered the war, and decided the ongoing IP rights squabble was in the way of fighting a war, so took the Wright patents by passing a law, paid them (if I recall, $50,000) and junked the IP issue. It was all about roll control, so we now call those roll-thingummies "ailerons" - a French term. So IP rights, the free market, and innovation got to meet. They did not stay friends. dodo

The Wrights and Santos-Dumont took very different approaches to IP rights, and these had very different effects on the development of early aviation in the countries they worked in. The contrasting approaches are an interesting primer on IP rights, and their effect on innovation. The lesson I learnt from it was - if you really do something innovative, you won't keep it! Guess which government socialised the IP rights? Guess which country was so influential in early aviation that many of the words, terms and practices we use every day, resonate from that era? dodo

How about a discussion on how IP laws promote innovation? We could take the Wright brothers as one example and Santos-Dumont as another... dodo

Jesus...or Mary? dodo

I am not sure that is correct. At the EGM, all the board clearly wanted to resolve these problems and move on, but despite everything they have said, nothing has changed. The conclusion I draw from that, and from the posts I have seen here, is that pretty much all the board are doing their best, believe they are doing the right things, and yet, the board is dysfunctional, does not communicate within itself or to the membership, and cannot form a unified view. For a typical example, if CASA has delivered an ultimatum to RA, both verbally, and now in writing, why is the only information to members that a position was created and filled due to unspecified urgency? I give up. I'd like to think that firing x, or electing y would improve the situation, but frankly, if I was CASA, I would have the same view that they appear to have: "If after all this time, and so many warnings, RA can't resolve these issues, we must find someone who can!" Nothing has changed. Our elected representatives are going to drag us into disaster. dodo

Would that apply to Rec aircraft? For example, 19- rego: the builder is allowed to modify their aircraft, but this seems to imply the builder wouldn't be allowed tht particular modification? dodo PS - purely hypothetical - I own a GoPro 2, but not an aircraft ;)

Was it a question? I read an unsubstantiated allegation intended to damage a person's reputation. dodo

Turbs, I think there is no doubt at all where the mailing list for Middos letter came from. He was obliged to notify members of the EGM, so there is no privacy issue. There is an issue of whether the letter was a balanced summary of information to members, but that is a much more subjective question (and I imagine Middo wrote it as he believed it to be true - which still might not be as balanced as you might wish!) As to the other allegation... first I have heard of it, but then I haven't received any election material in my email. I am not sure if I should feel left out. It is a fairly damaging allegation, so I would expect some evidence or substantiation from SAJabFlyer - the Privacy Commissioner would expect more than a unsubstantiated allegation before investigating dodo

So with anti-clockwise rotation, you got a very quick and dangerous right hand turn (with a nose drop), and a very slow left hand turn. However, I suspect air rules were made during the period 1909-1915, well before the Camel of 1917. Why 1909-15? Little flying actually occurred, especially multiple aircraft in a circuit or equivalent until about 1909. Before that it was pretty much test hops and demonstrations. Only the Wrights had demonstrated sustained flying about 1905, and publicly rather later (1908 in France). I think the first licences/certificates were issued about 1910. By 1913, things were fairly organised, but the war would have required standardisation of procedures, especially as the Allies had to work together, so couldn't effectively have greatly different rules. And armed forces require standardisation of approach and process, so the expansion of flying training would have required rules by about 1915, if not earlier. And left hand? Either following sailing rules, or possibly French road rules. Given two seat aircraft were inevitably later than single seat, and tandem seating was favoured as son as aircraft started to reach speeds where drag became a serious issue, the left or right question probably became relevant quite late...I think it might be time to look through the early issues of "Flight" magazine to see what I can find! dodo

The Gnome and Le Rhone rotaries spun counter clockwise, I believe (from looking at stationary props in pictures). I don't know about the Anzani or other early engines. dodo

Or "The aircraft is not safe to fly until it has a sticker saying this aircraft is not safe to fly"

What emerged today? I feel like I am the only one without some inside track to the facts...I suspect that makes me one of the 99% of RA-Aus members that struggle to find out what the hell is going on... dodo

The forum allows me to "agree" with your comment once. I would prefer to give it a dozen ticks. dodo

Not in my experience. You ring a board member, get partial, incomplete, or misleading information. Or none at all. And everyone has to do it individually. Neither efficient, nor effective. Yes. When I contact NAIPS, it responds. My board doesn't; or if it does, it is far less informative and accurate than NAIPS weather & NOTAMS My point is the existing communication doesn't work. The board don't listen, and don't inform. dodo