DonRamsay

Nearest is probably Bankstown- busier than I fancy. Camden less so but ideal would be Coffs Harbour, especially as my daughter lives there. Gets me the training but not the endorsement. That’s still mouldering in the pipeline. as usual, Australia lags behind NZ and the USA and why? . . . a four letter acronym.

We’ve been waiting many years for CASA to give us access to a CTA endorsement. Very happy to be properly equipped and do the training and take the test. Just one barnacle here . . . slow CASA bureaucrats. The promise that the RPL and RPC are equivalents has never been delivered. I suspect malice against RPC by the old hands at CASA.

I was in a meeting with CASA, AirServices and the RAAF a couple of years ago when they extended the CTA SW of Williamtown. Initially a TRA, it has since been locked in. At the time everyone agreed that the YWMN airspace was an accident of time and it was declared it would be redesigned from first principles. That could have been 3 years ago but so far no real change. Like most military airspace’s, I suspect the restrictions are bigger and lower than they need to be and kept closed longer than they need to be. Luxury for the military, poverty for taxpayers. The authorities said that a Victor up Stockton Beach was not viable because it was too close to the runway. Before they invested a billion dollars getting the base ready for the F35, they should have relocated to Tamworth.

Looks like they’ve come down in the Southern part of the Ultralight Lane that wraps around the back of Williamtown RAAF base/ Newcastle Airport. Aircraft other than ultralights also use the lane to get between the Hunter Valley and Taree. the Lane is an awful piece of airspace with the controlled airspace at just 1,600 ft AMSL. It runs through a shallow, narrow valley. on hot and windy days it can be a handful.

Thanks Rhys, that is an area I think needs a hard look. If I ever had a qualm about the whole thing it was that the Board may have just a bit too much latitude. If there is no good reason for the Board to have the absolute say about something then it probably should be written down in the Constitution. Don

Ian, you are of course completely correct on both facts. I am not representing anyone else and nobody needs my or anyone else's approval to draft and present a motion for a Special Resolution to a General Meeting. All I was saying was that if there is something somebody wanted changed but could use some assistance in getting the change done then I was happy to assist. However, if the motion would be something I would have to vote against, it would be hypocritical for me to assist somebody to draft such a motion. For example, I could never assist somebody to draft a motion to take RAAus back to being an incorporated association. What I was also saying was that I am not the only one of 9,000 pilots who could come up with a good idea to change the Constitution. It is also true that the only changes that have been proposed in the last, at least 6 years, had my signature on them. Nobody else has taken the trouble to put a change to a vote of ordinary members in general meeting. That's not quite correct the way you say it. Yes, I was a member of a Board that voted to set a minimum age at which a student could commence flying training. At the time, as you will recall, we had CFIs not acting with due diligence in allowing 9 year olds to take the controls. The Board decision was practical but not, I agree, the correct solution. Better to hold CFIs accountable for their questionable decisions to let 9 year olds take the controls than put on a blanket ban that was not imposed for GA. I accept that I was a part of that mistake and was glad to see it overturned. I am not sure what that has to do with people other than me making suggestions to change the current constitution. You are looking at the the outcome not the cause. The eventual run down in financial reserves resulted from Boards and managers (for years before I joined RAAus) allowing maladministration that ended up costing RAAus many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Late in my brief stint on the Board in 2012, the issues were discovered and by the time I got back on the Board in 2015, the money to repair the issues from the maladministration had been largely spent. Ian, that's your view and you are perfectly entitled to it but that view was not supported by the 90% who voted in favour of the change despite your campaigning against the change. All it would have taken was 25% to vote against it and it would have failed. What I want to do is have another look and see if a good thing can be made better based on the experience we have had with it in operation through an election and an AGM.

Dear Mr Bull, Your statement is both off-topic here and factually incorrect. Wer were discussing the Constitution not the Tech Manual in this thread and, if I recall correctly, I have written a great number of words on the subject that is off topic and won't be repeating any here. If you have any serious changes you would like to see in the Constitution of RAAus, feel free to express them here or elsewhere. Don

I think I need to communicate better what it is I was trying to do. As an ordinary member of RAAus, I have set out to review the current Constitution to see if it can be improved. Simple as that. I use the word "review" precisely as I have viewed the document many times, in many stages of development, previously. This time, I am looking back on it having had the benefit of the experience of an election and an AGM and a Board Meeting. Now I am operating from the standpoint of a non-board member, with no axe to grind other than to get it as good as it can be. I had hoped that anyone here who still felt strongly about specific issues that they felt had not been taken account of in the version that was approved by about 90% of members who took the trouble to vote, could list them here and, if warranted, I could draft a motion for a special resolution to amend the constitution. I could have looked back through the previous thread on the subject but that was too full of acutely personal insults that I chose not to revisit. Also, I have no way of knowing whether the people who expressed serious objections then still held those views. Reading through hours of posts from people like KP who were secretly busy in the background setting up an organisation to compete with RAAus I saw as unproductive. What I was offering (that nobody to date has taken me up on) was to seriously consider suggestions for changes and frame motions for a special resolution(s) that could be put to the next General Meeting of RAAus to achieve change. I offered that service because It seemed to me that nobody else had any plans to do anything like that. Don

I don't know why you wasted the electrons communicating something as meaningless and unhelpful as that.

Well, I guess we can wrap this thread up and I can go back to my detailed review. Thanks Col for your helpful suggestion - I will keep it in mind as I complete my review. Considering all the discontent about the current constitution, not one single suggestion for a specific amendment! Just 20 posts in total and most of those off topic. It certainly says to me that the discontent has no substance and any disparaging comments from here on have no credibility. Don

Good luck with that. Would you call that a "level playing field"?

No to what? Do you mean "No there will be no medical because no one can see what is around a corner"? As your favourite Queenslander says "Please explain?" Don

That's because you have never been diagnosed with diabetes, ischemic heart disease, stroke, or other serious conditions that would prevent you from being able to declare to the RMS that you are fit to drive a car in NSW. If you did have one of the qualifying conditions then you would be required to get a medical clearance to drive your car. The RAAus health standard is the same as for holding a car drivers licence in in NSW. No medical required as long as you don't have one of the listed conditions. Nobody does it voluntarily. Before I had a condition that was on the list I still got a check-up from my GP every year but didn't get him to write to RAAus or the RMS - no need. Absolutely not suggesting perfectly healthy RAAus pilots go to a GP to get cleared to drive a car or fly with RAAus. There is an age The Ops Manual ver 7.1 (latest release) sets out health standards and certification required at section 2.16: "Applicants for the issue of a Certificate are required to have a health standard equivalent to that required for the issue of a private motor vehicle driver licence in Australia" RAAus asks you to supply: "a signed RAAus medical declaration that they meet the health standard, or an RAAus approved equivalent" It does not ask you to go to a GP or other medical practitioner unless: "if an applicant’s medical status includes one of the following conditions, the person must provide RAAus with a statement from their doctor (GP) of meeting the health standard, or provide a copy of a valid motor vehicle or heavy vehicle General Medical Assessment Report from an Australian road and transport authority, whatever called, or provide a copy of the CASA Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate (RAMPC) or higher medical certificate; (my emphasis) (i) Epilepsy; or (ii) Diabetes (Type 1 or 2); or (iii) A heart condition / disease or paralysis; or (iv) Mental illness (medicated or otherwise); or (v) Becoming 75 years of age or older; or (vi) Any other medically significant safety related condition." So, there is no move to change what has just been published in Ver 7.1 of the Ops manual. Nothing has changed and nothing is proposed to be changed regarding RAAus health standard. If anything, the GA medicals for pilots who fly not-for-reward are likely to be amended to look more like the RAAus medical standard than the other way around. Don

Why would it leave anyone "looking for answers"? Are you seriously proposing that the E&LAAA will have no requirement for a health standard? I agree with every word of docjell's post but neither he nor I write the laws, pass them through the parliament nor give royal assent nor make the Regulations under the Act. The fact is that there is a laid down medical standard that requires RAAus pilots to self-declare their fitness to fly and, if they have certain conditions, have them assessed (and treated) by a medical practitioner. And while Doctors cannot predict certain outcomes, running a few tests each year (especially as we age) are useful in identifying possible issues and for managing existing conditions. One thing for sure is that without any evidence (like blood and urine test results) a doctor would have no basis on which to manage your health or predict anything.