dodo

If the board ever told us anything, you advice would make sense. However, as usual, we get told nothing, and we find a little out via rumour and innuendo on a web forum. Pathetic, isn't it? But I don't understand why you blame the uniformed. What about the board informing those they represent? dodo

I suspect it was because the driver of a vehicle (horse or internal combustion) sat on the left in France. The two overwhelming influences on the development of conventions and rules in early aviation were France and yacht sailing. ..and why do the French drive on the right (therefore driver on the left)? One theory is that it was a Revolutionary practice, introduced so a horseman had to pull aside for a pedestrian (holding the reins in the right hand made it natural to pull over to the right to give way), instead of the pedestrian having to dodge the arrogant horseman of the ancien regime! dodo

Well, after all that, I looked back at my early posts, http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-safety-training-compliance-coordinator-appointed.63796/#post-296613 and http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raa-safety-training-compliance-coordinator-appointed.63796/#post-296620 and I still do not understand why we have an emergency that justifies some odd arrangement where the treasurer resigns from the board one day and is hired as an employee the next, before the board is informed of the arrangement. And the membership is merely told it was a matter of urgency, and no further explanation has been provided by RA-Aus. Call me less than worldly all you want, but it still looks terrible to me, dodo

Keith, I would take particular issue with the following "Interesting thing:-I have analised the moaners/complainers/negatives are way down south and it is the ones who want to dismember the QLD board numbers." Who wants to dismember the QLD baord members, either physically or figuratively? QLD representation seems fine to me. I don't know where you dreamt or drank up that weird conspiracy. Secondly, as a "southerner", I can sympathise with the legitimate desire of a North Queenslander to analise all southerners, but I believe you have only achieved a poor analysis, which is rather different to a comprehensive analisation. I am quite certain I have not been analised. dodo

The new President has been on the board for some years. I have never heard him suggest a need for a position or some action like this. He has had a lot of time to be proactive about this and other issues, which are now biting us. And we have a history of non-open recruitment which have been unsuccessful. Maybe getting it right takes time and foresight, but lack of action - or action in haste - can get very expensive. For example the last CEO was neither cheap nor effective - and was hired by ignoring an open recruitment process. dodo

It had to be done now? Why not last week? Last month, Last year? So why has it never been raised before, especially by Mr Herring or Mr Breitkreuz? No prior discussion, but now it is so urgent that the Prez just appoints someone, before notifying the board, let alone the membership that the position is required? And then we hire a board member? It looks like the current government. I can hear the quotes already: "I had to make a hard decision" (it just happened to be decision no one knew had to be made, and one that financially benefited someone I knew well) So what are the duties, responsibilities, (and importantly) the powers of this new position? Or are those still to be worked out? In which case, what will it achieve? dodo

This looks terrible! Surely as a board member he could have achieved something in the safety area - or made it clear we needed such a position? Instead, we suddenly need such a position...and he is the man for it. And the job is more important than having a Treasurer? This just looks wrong. Maybe it is OK, but it doesn't look right! dodo

From a chance conversation, I was told a new wooden Jab prop is $1600, so if the new prop is required (rather than just an interesting experiment), there isn't much cost difference. dodo

So why did Myles take over as the long term treasurer (replacing the openly temporary Michael Apps), if he resigns a month or two later? That doesn't make sense. I am also a little tired of the "politicians reasons" for every resignation... "spend time with grandchildren" (Tizard), "family pressures" (Runciman), "pursue other options" (Breitkreuz). In Steve Runciman's case, this is probably very true, but why would anyone who cares about RA enough to take on a board role, quit simply to do something more interesting (as in"pursue other options") when RA is in serious trouble? So what is going on? We only get platitudes from RA, as ever, dodo

Instead of saying we should help RA-Aus, why don't you just read the manual? Everything should be in the Tech Manual. Look at what is required in section 7 for your rego class - both for initial rego, and for renewal. If you have covered all this, you should OK (umm, except...) Except.... You might have sent in a Final Inspection, or a Weight and Balance, but RA don't have it. You can't easily check what they have or don't have on file; and The Tech manual doesn't state some things. For example, a 25 rego has no requirements in the tech manual, certainly as far as the "If you fly this you will die - please don't sue us, CASA" placard goes; and If your aircraft is factory built, pray that the type certificate is still considered valid. So read the Tech Manual, check out what is required for initial rego, and for renewal, and check everything has been sent. If it isn't stated in the Tech manual for your rego class, pick the nearest and send that in. Then cross your fingers. dodo

It's a bit disappointing the reason for resignation mid-term is the usual political one "to spend more time with my family". As usual with such politician's reasons, it always leaves me wondering why you would take on the board role, knowing it's requirements, if you would just leave without completing the term you stood for. It doesn't show much respect for your constituents if you don't complete a term as representative. Mind, I think quitting as President is a bit different - the board should be collegiate enough to handle that change, and you could still provide background and advice to the new prez, dodo

Nothing on the RA-Aus website. Not really a surprise, but does anyone know anything more than has been said so far? bit frustrating, and a bit deja vu... dodo

How does that work? Who can issue one except an ICAO body (eg CASA)? I don't think Special CoAs cross international boundaries...or do they? dodo Edit: CASA authorised persons may issue a special certificate of airworthiness for LSA (production ready-to-fly aircraft) or an experimental certificate for LSA (kit built aircraft or production aircraft that no longer satisfy the LSA standards). No, I don't know who outside CASA is a CASA authorised person

I don't think it was pompous. I think the wording was trying to say the plane is good, it's no fun grounding it, and he would like to register it when he can - while stating only the bare technical reasons why he had to ground it. However... 1 The Special CoA for an LSA is issued by CASA. (not the manufacturer, not the owner, not RA. Only CASA issue these.) 2 A Special CoA obviously had been issued (the document was invalid, therefore it must have existed). 3 The obvious conclusion is that if the CoA is invalid, CASA issued it invalidly. I can see no suggestion or inference that the manufacturer, owner, or RA did anything underhanded to get that CoA issued. I suspect this isn't the only similar case. LSA rules & regs have confused most of us. CASAs approach of declaring a certificate they issued invalid, and making you get another seems like maladministration to me (rather than just issuing a correct one) - especially as they don't appear to be acknowledging anything, but instead get an intermediary like RA to address the issue. It would be nice to see Senate Estimates ask CASA if they have issued any invalid Special CoAs, and if so, how many, and why? My suspicion is there may be more than just a handful - there might even be a lot. dodo

GFA teach that you have a plan for a rope break (or power loss if a motor glider). It would go something like this: if the rope breaks we will land straight ahead; if we are too high for that, we will turn 60 degrees right and land along the shore of the lake; if we are too high for that, we will turn 120 degrees left and land along that shore of the lake; if we are above 300 feet, we will turn back. So that video looked pretty normal to me. My instructor pulled a simulated rope break on me on about day three or four, and we turned back from 350 feet with lots of room to spare. I wouldn't try it in a Jabiru (or similar) dodo

25 rego usually, not 10. And they were sold as the Sapphire LSA - that terminology has been going a while (for example the Jabiru LSA 55 was built around the same time, I think) dodo

If it sounds feasible, try talking to the tech manager. It can't hurt, and ou clearly are not trying to evade any rule or responsibility, dodo

So long as the aircraft meets the requirements, I think it is registrable. However, I suspect you would meet two possible barriers: 1 Given the history of the issue, there would be some suspicion, so you would need to meet every requirement very clearly; and 2 Similar to (1), is it realistic that the aircraft will be flown legally. I haven't checked the empty weight and fuel burn of the aircraft, but if with a passenger you have 150kg of people, and only 20kg for fuel to stay under 600kg, this would lead to a reasonable suspicion that once registered,you might just fill the tanks to 658kg, as 20kg of fuel isn’t going to get you far if you maintain a legal 45min reserve. I would expect to be scrutinised on realistic weight (weigh the aircraft empty), and show it can usefully be flown with the fuel allowable within a 600kg MTOW. A J230 is registrable at 600 kg in RA because this is still quite a practical aircraft, but GA you could register it at 700kg. Plenty of J230s are registered as one register or another. I don't think a Cessna or Piper is any different. It is just that in the past people have been viewed as using RA registration as a way of "getting around" the rules, dodo

I trained with several instructors, including David Rolfe. I have a very high opinion of him, both as an instructor and a person.. And the Oaks is a good place to fly from, interesting, entertaining, and good practice (RH circuits on 18, LH on 36, parallel grass runways with a few boggy spots). They have a Quicksilver, I think, plus the Lightwing, LSA55s, and a J230. The low cost is really nice, but most importantly, the quality of training is good. I don't think you will regret training with Dave (or any of his instructors), dodo

Best wishes. I know how it feels when you have thought it all through, but still you wonder what you may have missed. I hope it goes well, dodo

OK, it looks like only a "security officer" (in the language of the Regulations) can require someone to show their ASIC card. In that case, the security officer must provide their own identification first. Or, to put it simply, you should probably tell Mr RPT to jam his joystick somewhere improbable. dodo Division 6.6 Powers of security officers in relation to ASICs, VICs and TACs 6.52 Definition — security officer In this Division: security officer means: (a) a law enforcement officer; or (b) an airport security guard; or © an aviation security inspector. 6.53 Directions to show valid ASICs, VICs and TACs (1) In this regulation: exempt person, in relation to a part of the secure area of a security controlled airport, means somebody who, under the Act or these Regulations, is not required to properly display a valid ASIC, valid VIC or valid TAC in that part of that area. (2) Subject to subregulation (2A), if: (a) a security officer knows, or has reason to believe, that a person who is in a part of a security controlled airport is required under these Regulations to properly display a valid ASIC, valid VIC or valid TAC; but (b) the person is apparently not properly displaying a valid ASIC, valid VIC or valid TAC; the security officer may (unless the security officer knows the person to be an exempt person in relation to that part of the airport) direct the person to show him or her a valid ASIC, valid VIC or valid TAC. (2A) At a security controlled airport from or to which no screened air service operates, subregulation (2) applies only during a traffic period for the airport. (3) Before giving a person a direction under subregulation (2), a security officer must show the person: (a) the officer’s identity card; or (b) another appropriate form of identification. (4) A person (other than a person who is an exempt person for the area or part) must comply with a direction of a security officer under subregulation (2). Penalty: 10 penalty units. (5) If an exempt person is given a direction by a security officer under subregulation (2), the exempt person must show the security officer identification that establishes that he or she is an exempt person. Penalty: 10 penalty units.

The requester also has to provide you with his/her identification BEFORE they ask for the ASIC card... dodo

Pity you can only like or agree with a post once! Multiple failures of an audit, no interest in them...it came across at the EGM that the early audits were just minor routine stuff, until CASA pulled the pin. But if you read the audit reports, you get more and more agitated as you read... dodo

I worked there for a week as a volunteer, and by the end of the week was more or less useful. I am not sure how many volunteers we have who could make it to Canberra for a few weeks at their own cost who have useful degree of knowledge. It does take a fair bit of knowledge. If you are interested, I made a comment here: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-fails-casa-audit-again.50744/page-55#post-260013 I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, and I am still very unhappy at how we got into the mess, dodo

I was thinking of the Ford Pinto myself. But the most significant point about the R44 and the Pinto is the same - the company and the regulator DID NOT pull the vehicle. in the Pinto case, one later court case ordered "punitive damages" after an accident to make it clear that the company had known the vehicle was unsafe, dodo