David Isaac

RAAus is and always will be a conflicted entity. How can a single entity be a member representative organisation and a pseudo regulator in the same function. This was foisted upon us; we had no choice. It is effectively a pandoras box. Anyone who thinks that we can write a procedural or technical manual and not have it subject to the Regulator vitoe is seriously deluded. This however, does NOT mean that we cannot construct such manuals in a consensus process, to say otherwise is complete BS. So why don't we? Just remember that whatever we write can be styled, edited, amended or vetoed by the Regulator, because the Civila Aviation Act and Regulations are hierarchically higher than any Standards or manuals we write. This is exactly the case for building regulations. I am a member of several Australian Standards committees for fire safety measures and we write the building standards that are referenced in the National Construction Code (NCC) (BCA). The standards are written in a consensus process by all the stakeholders ..... BUT .... Where the Standards are referenced in the NCC, they form part of the regulatory structure and MUST BE STRUCTURED in accordance with the regulators guidelines. In this case the regulator is the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB). They can and do dictate policy to us, we form the technical requirements for safety (when they let us do our job), and they edit them to suit their policy. Why do we think we are so special that we think we can run our little renegade bunch immune to the influence of the Regulator. Get a bloody life guys ... Wake up and smell the roses.

I was extremely saddened to learn yesterday that Steve Robards “ozzie” on Rec Flying passed away after a long illness. He will be sadly missed. I met Steve a few years ago in 2009 when I got back into ultralights. He was one of the pioneers in the Ultralight movement and many of you here would have known him. He contracted a bizarre lung disease (I think it was) and he became increasingly debilitated by it. Much of what we have today in Recreational Aviation is thanks to Steve and many like him who pioneered the sport. I know that Steve had a hand in the manufacture of the Thruster Glasshouse (Dexter Burkill has one). He was a man who loved to practise meat bombing and is well known in APF circles. I will certainly miss his banter here on FB and personally. He was a very nice interactive dude. Rest in peace my friend. Here is part of a post on his FB page with regards to his final send off. I won’t be able to make it as I will be in Perth "Shortly before Steve passed away I asked him how he wanted us to send him off. His reply was "well I suppose we'll have to do an ashes jump but I wouldn't mind being shot out of a mortar". So in keeping with Steve's last wishes the plan is to do an ashes jump on Sat 1st Oct at Elderslie then shortly after sunset there will be a small fireworks display and you guessed it, Steve will be riding the last big shot into the atmosphere. I will be doing a letter box drop this weekend to near by houses to let them know what we are planning and why. The fireworks company told us this is required. As long as there are no objections from the locals it should go ahead as planned. Stay tuned. By the way If you love aviation go to Steve's FB page and check out his Photos. Hundreds of fantastic aviation photos as well as pics of old friends, skydiving, hang gliding, ultralights and more. See them through Steve's eyes, as he saw it. Totally worth your time". by Steve Dines

Interesting that the entity is a Proprietary Limited company. If the intent is to provide a competing service to RAAus, I guess those who use its services won't have any say In its operation, policy or manuals. Its shareholders and directors will also be entitled to payment from profits. Good luck with the latter.

It was this appointment that was alleged as nepotistic and and failed to follow due process. It was also alleged the appointment was inappropriate because Myles had no experience in setting up SMSs. In fairness to Ed at the time he was was acting out of the failure of RAAus to set up a SMS as required by the CASA agreement. His error was perhaps to have appointed Myles without a proper advertising and selection program. Ed was under considerable time constraints at the time because of what previous RAAus management had failed to do.

Perhaps the obvious is staring us all in the face. Perhaps RAAus managed to acquire a better deal for all us members through PSB. Isnt that what the CEO was saying recently that they had a better insurance deal coming? I would expect our management to be always looking for better deals wouldn't you?

Cant argue with what you have said Scotty. The web site should have been updated immediately given staff can now access and update. A bit of a blue me thinks. Neil, Scotty has always been way ahead of me LOL. I agree you shouldn't have to phone for info that is available on the web site; I was just asking if anyone had called the office to see why the website hadn't been updated.

I know it's a stupid question, but, has anyone phoned the office to find out what happened?

I certainly respect your opinion Frank and am disappointed you have witnessed vitriol in your short time on the Board. The deceptive belief of 'absolute knowledge' is certainly dangerous, it has in history lead to 'absolute power' ...

Fox bat slips beautifully; The Citabria comes down like an elevator with full flap and an aggressive slip; The Auster likewise at 45 knots IAS or higher if you are chicken. Ive slipped the Cessnas, but it is a waste of time. If you have the earlier 40 degree flap models; just push the nose down and the drag is so high they sink like an elevator and don't accelerate that much and when you round out the speed drops off real quick. IMHO they ruined the C models when they STC'd the flaps back to 30.

Welcome Old Lurker ... Some really knowledgeable and helpful people on this site.

Frank, I'm not sure what you are driving at. Having less or more board members provides the same ratio effect. It can always be one more board member than 50% that will determine any resolution. That does NOT mean that will be the case in all or many resolutions. In voting that is that close it will no doubt involve some debate and the debate could swing the decision either way. Seven actively involved board members is better for the membership. Compare this with many more board members where invariably some will sit on the fence and NOT contribute and that would be a poorer outcome for members.

It was, and it failed at a previous repair weakness, but his point is still valid.

In the case where you specifically asked for it, it would have been a great experience and a great learning curve. I did the same many years ago in a C172 Warnervale to Woollongong with my CFI and learned why NOT to fly in severe turbulence conditions.

I have to ask if severe turbulence was forecast, why did the lesson proceed?

There are quite a few alternate strips on the Eyre Peninsular

It is an interesting mix on the New board. A mix I think most would be comfortable with. Frankly it would be a bugga of a position to hold, after all it is a volunteered position with zero financial reward. No glory, but a position subject to criticism both informed and otherwise. Why don't we encourage the mix of old and new to work together for the good of the members; sort out their differences for a constructive future for RAAus. Let's hope the 'smouldering factors' that Keith refers to can be resolved constructively.

But obviously something wrong with Don's opinion aye HH. Bit rough on him Tubzy. Last I heard all opinions were welcome here ...?

Your best approach is to talk to CASA Avmed about it. I would have thought that 1-3% is a very low risk. I would have also thought the percentage risks for any undiagnosed issue or even general medical risks of a medical incident would be in that order anyway. There is no such thing as risk free. It may well be acceptable to CASA after some discussion. Talk to them and ask them if that risk is acceptable. Go to a neurological professor and get a second and third opinion and submit that with your discussions. Be prepared to spend some money though. My neurologist told me that MRIs show all sorts of things that are ultimately benign and some things not so benign. Better to know than not. He said they are still learning today from what MRIs turn up. I also had to have a couple of MRIs at CASAs request. It showed markers which in the end were considered normal.

Sadly it could be someone we know. Rest in peace buddy.

HH (Tubz), Exactly what is it that is "sitting there right now, available to be fixed"? And exactly what do you propose we do to "fix" it?

Yenn, With the current restraints on Aust Post which they have now made public, the 3 days needs to be more like 7 days unless you are prepared to pay the express post fee.

Kasp, What you have described above is a bunch of dates the meaning of which may well be lost on the members. Please explain the relevance of those dates to the calling and process of election; and where the actual process adopted is in breach of good governance as you allege.

Evening HH, You are of course correct where Directors are unlawfully elected; and it would be technically unpleasant even where the outcome of an unlawful election was not detrimental to the members. At this point in time I dont see how matters of legal technical argument around process would change the outcome even if the election had been held under the processes dictated in the new constitution at the time the election was called (and NO I am NOT endorsing failure to follow proper process, because process is the current argument). However, Kasp has indicated previously that he had a conversation with Michael Monke and that Michael had assured him the Board had sort a legal opinion and my understanding was that legal opinion was ratified by a second legal opinion. So I appreciate we have a difference of opinion and I cannot vouch for Kasp as I have no idea who he is or where he practices law; we just dont know because he hasn't told us. Please dont read that as disrespectful towards Kasp. I suggest however, that we would be better putting our collective energies into special resolutions on matters that concerned us most about the new constitution prior to the votes that put the new constitution in place. We all know that on matters of equitable fairness we would have little problem convincing the masses to support any resolution that applied fairness to the members. There were a few matters about the constitution that concerned a number of members of this forum and now is the time to formulate changes in special resolutions that would be equitably supported by the members. Somehow it appears we have lost sight of the matters of fury that were argued as affecting the members and yet we are head banging on technical matters of election over which there are conflicting legal opinions. So given we appear to have a difference of legal opinion on this election matter, what possible value does expending energy on resolutions and technical argument when the outcomes would probably be no different in terms of who gets voted on the Board; and where the arguments and resolutions may present no perceived value (equitable or otherwise) to the members? Under these circumstances, why would the members support it when they are more interested in what affects them as members and how the constitution would influence the application of fairness?

Like to give us an explanation Tubz?

Dutch, Same thing happened to my son in law 41 yrs old, built like a Malley bull and 6'4" tall. My daughter also used her medical associates for immediate scan and subsequent operation through associated ortho surgeon. He also had the drop foot. Real worry when so fit and young. He was an extreme sportsman which likely aggravated the problem. I feel for him greatly as it is likely to limit his recreation. We only get one back.