Jim McDowall

Tiger woods, would have saved millions, if he had only rented. LoL.

 

He is not alone!

corruption by developers of council officials in the Planning process

 

The Wollongong experience should have been a wake up call to all those in the local government arena but most state governments seem to be reticent to oversee the local government sector (as creatures of state legislation) so corruption can be allowed to flourish without check. The various ICAC systems are too cumbersome and will only ever be used to get some state politicians neck off the chopping block (or perhaps on it!).

The far more insidious corruption is the prosecution of agendas by lower level employees who are adept at manipulating the systems that they manage. Quite often the motive is nothing more than what they see as a desirable outcome according to the internal group think - there is no personal gain - but someone pays the price of there decision. There are more swamps in local government that need to be drained than even President Trump could imagine.

Bet no-one knew about this Government review:

Review - National Airports Safeguarding Framework Implementation Link to web page

On 21 August 2019, the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) agreed to undertake a review of implementation of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF).

The Review is intended to consider implementation of the NASF across jurisdictions; and seeks submissions from all levels of government, industry and community stakeholders........

The NASF was agreed by Governments in 2012. It is a national land use planning framework that aims to improve community amenity and airport safety outcomes by ensuring aviation related issues are recognised as part of land use planning processes.

The NASF has implications for those people working in town planning, residential or commercial development, building construction or related industries, and the aviation industry.  It consists of a set of overarching principles with nine guidelines.

Sorry people the consultation closed on November 22 and I bet the only responses were from local government and their myriad sycophant organisations

Note the massively strong fuselage.

 

Which is exactly why the MTOW for RAAus should be 1500kg. Time has shown that the inertia effects upon impact can be withstood by these CAR3/FAR23 certified types.

I think that under the Part 149 arrangements CASA will require that the register becomes a public document. End of story.

 

According to Draft AC149-01the register is to be published. The Draft, which was never put out to public consultation (even though it is being used by ASAO's as the template for their Part 149 exposition) despite saying"

"This Advisory Circular (AC) will be of interest to:

• Sport and recreational aviation organisations that currently perform self-administration functions under arrangements with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and intend to apply for an ASAO certificate under Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1988 (CASR).

• Other groups and organisations that may, in the future, want to undertake self-administration functions for activities in which they and their members and affiliates are involved.

• Members and affiliates of these organisations and other persons engaged in those activities. "

The Draft AC says on page 14:

"An ASAO with the aviation administration function of registering aircraft must include in the exposition a description of its procedures for the registration of aircraft and the publication of the register. An ASAO's aircraft register must contain sufficient information to enable the ASAO or CASA to identify any aircraft on the register, as well as the aircraft’s owner and operator."

By the way, congrats on following this issue through and getting a result that shows that RAA must recognise all of the laws of the land in its deliberations and should not accept the assertions of those who have something to gain at face value, CASA included.

In my opinion, I think that under the Part 149 arrangements CASA will require that the register becomes a public document. End of story.

But the caviate I would insist on, were I able too, would be that his licence be canceled in definatley and forever, both for his sake and the general public.

 

for caviate read caveat

for canceled read cancelled

for definatley read definitely

Now that you have my attention:

RAA issues certificates NOT licences and they can be suspended until such time as RAA goes through its processes. CASA may however unilaterally cancel a certificate (CAR 269). CASA's decision can be appealed through Administrative Appeals Tribunal etc. 

RAA's processes are outlined in their recent Complaints manual. RAA's decision may be appealed to CASA but good luck with that because CASA can refuse a review and then the procedures laid out in CASR 149.630(1) are a recipe for a kangaroo court:

(1)  In conducting a review of an internal review decision of an ASAO:

                     (a)  the procedures for conducting the review are within the discretion of CASA; and

                     (b)  CASA is not bound by the rules of evidence; and

                     ©  CASA may inform itself in any way it thinks fit; and

                     (d)  the review is to be conducted with as little technicality and formality, and as quickly and economically, as a proper consideration of the matters permit.

CASA claims that its decision is reviewable by the AAT. The AAT may not want to however, review the decision of a private body (RAA). In any event the AAT Act 1975 Section 37 requires :

a person who has made a decision that is the subject of an application for review (other than second review) by the Tribunal must, within 28 days after receiving notice of the application (or within such further period as the Tribunal allows), lodge with the Tribunal a copy of:

                     (a)  a statement setting out the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision; and

                     (b)  subject to any directions given under section 18B, every other document that is in the person’s possession or under the person’s control and is relevant to the review of the decision by the Tribunal

On the basis of these requirements CASA, if it acted in the manner laid down in CASR 149.630 would almost certainly lose any appeal to the AAT.

Or do they know that the AAT will not ever hear an appeal of any decision made under CASR149?

lightening

 

I hope you meant lightning

Did anyone get a look at the AEMO Dashboard before the cool change hit?

 

No, was watching the cricket

EAA 2019_1_25_.pdf

EAA Sport Aviation article on B747 fire bomber pilot

To them democratization of the power to the people kills their old business model

 

If you had ever tried to establish a community solar farm you would probably realise that the regulatory system has been designed to prevent "democratisation" .

should they desal so a farmer can plant cotton?

 

Actually we are using the desal plant in SA so that water is available to grow fodder which uses a lot more water than growing cotton.

I think " Your attitude about water says a lot about your view. "

They are always, without exception globally a non private power system even if its a stand alone one

 

Bruce Power is Canada's first private nuclear generator, providing 30% of Ontario's power.On Jan. 1, 2016, Bruce Power began receiving a single price for all output from the site of $65.73 per megawatt hour (MW/h), which is about 30% less than the average price the province paid in 2015 of $98.90 MW/h.

Bruce Power, as a private sector operator, will continue to meet all investment requirements for the site. In the short-term, between 2016 and 2020, the company will be investing approximately $2.3 billion ($2014) as part of this plan.

In South Australia, the average wholesale electricity price ranges from $85-180 so the price Bruce Power receives would probably sustain a nuclear investment in Australia given that the Australian and Canadian economies are similar. It is also worth noting that the civil liability requirement in Canada rises to $1 billion from 2020 up from $75 million which Bruce Power clearly takes up in its calculations.

The claim that private investment in nuclear is not feasible cannot be sustained.

Even now it still does not stack up on dollars. 

 

If that was the case why then does the International Energy Agency (a UN body) report in its latest World Energy Report observe that "Construction starts for new nuclear power plants rose by 50% in 2018 , none of which were in China " and shows that final investment decisions for nuclear power plants increased in 2018 over 2017 (the highest since 2015).

It also said " Nuclear power investment edged up as new grid-connected plants in 2018 grew threefold, 80% of them in China. Construction starts rose to 6 GW none of which were in China, but were much lower than capacity additions"

These investments are not solely funded by central governments.

It is also clear from the report that without government support and policies worldwide renewable would not be such a large part of the energy generation sector.

Which begs the question "If governments should not pick winners, why favour subsidies for one industry sector over another"

Building a nationalised nuclear grid would take at least 30 years minimum

 

There is no basis for your assertion. Nuclear power was on the grid in other places a decade after the two bombs and we know a lot more now. The time element is governed by the antics of the naysayers who really need something to do that CREATES something. If the political will existed a nuclear powered grid could be up and running within a decade.

But the thousands of holes we have are far in excess of any practical use

 

And I suppose the steel that is in your vehicles, is your fences and whether you like it or not allows you to turn the lights on anytime you like comes from some other place.

Even UK are finding they can't build one economically

 

But in other places nuclear power are privately operated at a profit and would be even more economic if they got the same financial leg up that the renewables sector has received

we do not have the water to either cool them nor for the steam to power conversion

 

Australia is surrounded by sea. what say we used the excess power (ie when not demanded by the grid) to desal water. And BTW it is no accident that many nuclear power stations are located near the sea. We can overcome the Fukashima situation by pumping sea water to Roxby Downs.

inedible produce like cotton should be discouraged

 

It may surprise you to learn that cottonseed meal is a valuable stock feed that is helping keep our nations breeding stock fed in these trying times.

Or did you mean the most subsidised industry like mining and coal power, who get govt money, trash the joint, suck up all the water and leave a big hole in the ground and economy?

 

Time you did a little research on the facts instead of swallowing the drivel that the Greens hand out.

And Stony Point tidal gauge in SA is showing sea level FALL! Everybody seems to think that the tectonic plates are sitting static but in truth they are on the the move as are areas within them - up and down - as has been going on for ever. I think the UN should put a stop to this geologic phenomena by taxing the hell out of earths populations.

It is the height of human conceit that we think we can change forces of nature that we do not comprehensively understand.

As for the so called renewables industry. It would not exist without the unrestrained global government support that it has received, the like of which no other industry has ever received. If coal had received the same incentives we would have emission free coal fired power stations everywhere.

As for those who have taken the bait on lithium based batteries, have a look at this:

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/green-illusion-continues-tesla-crash-victim-cant-find-anyone-recycle-his-wrecked-car

In reality, Elon Musk has just been mining the government coffers of the world peddling a product that if it was anything else it would probably be banned on environmental grounds.

And meanwhile we destroy manufacturing in this country by having the highest power prices in the world. Smugness has its price but we live in a competitive world and should not, as a small nation, put ourselves in an un-competitive position just to feel good about ourselves. Very few industrial nations met their Kyoto target and I suspect that not many will met the Paris goals but the politicians of all nations will be saying one thing whilst doing another, whilst we in Australia pat ourselves on the back by telling ourselves what good little vegemites we are and wondering where the jobs that sustain the nation are.

I used Solidworks to do the same thing on an engine mount. Worked a treat.

Solidworks is available for free to EAA members but needs a fairly powerful computer to run. Onshape is an online alternative that has similar capacity to Solidworks and I think is still free for personal use - you just need a good (NBN?) internet connection.

Re the burning of roadside vegetation

 

There are other methods of control, eg slashing, sprays, grazing where possible. Outright prevention to undertake these works by adjacent landholders seeking to protect themselves and the community at large is prevented by law in SA and robustly policed by local councils.

As for burnt trees - we are still trying to get the council to remove dead burnt trees that are obviously primed to fall across roads (had the council out complaining about this - they said no problem- trees remained. a few days later one fell overnight and a neighbor drove into it in the early morning fog. Local government greenies should be chained to their desks and made to watch apocalyptic end of world movies and let the real stewards of the environment get on with life. That way we will all be happy.

You cannot use seawater for firefighting, it causes serious environmental damage

 

An the fire retardant doesn't? A small amount of salt water wont do any lasting damage.

Five years ago ago I sat and watched as the fire front ran along the overgrown roadside vegetation. It was a long time before the paddocks burned. This was also the case in the Wangary fires a decade earlier when the fire ran at upto 60km/hr. I South Australian CFS stats show that about 50% of fires start on roadsides. Thus it follows that many fires could be prevented by simply management of the roadsides. It used to happen but the we had a green revolution.

But with a month of media beating up  the drought, fires, first in the US then on the east coast, the climate extinction people, 11,000 scientists (of which only about 240 hold qualifications in anything remotely climate related) saying we are all doomed it is little wonder the crazies are out in force lighting fires.

End of this rant

Part 149 explained in attached document

Part 149 explained.pdf

All the people involved in designing and building a new house, including the Council now have a duty of care to comply with these overlays. That's where Public Liability fits in.

 

That is fine for new houses which make up a small percentage of the total housing stock. Councils real duty of care is often compromised by their neglect of roadside vegetation and rural roads citing "care for the environment". The current fire "emergency" on the east coast may have some outcomes that the green lobby may not like.

What mechanisms are there to detect this before damage is done?  

 

Appoint them to a quango or perhaps a Governorship or get them a job in th UN