Rag and Tube Aviator

February RA-Aus Board Meeting

2012-02-14T05:48:00.002+10:00

RA-Aus February Board Meeting

Below is an update for members of the recent meeting. In due course the President will release an official synopsis of the meeting.

Aerosafe Workshop. Those of us that were able went to Canberra two days early to attend Aerosafe training on Risk Management. The workshop was very well done and we all learnt a lot. We saw where our strengths were, and also where we had weaknesses. This is important to know, as we can now direct resources to areas where we are lacking.

Tec. Manager Resignation. Most are aware by now of Steve Bells resignation. I attended his farewell dinner and personally wish Steve well in his new endeavors. One stand out quality of Steve was his willingness to do his best to help our members achieve their goals and not put unnecessary obstacles in their path. At Oshkosh recently, I well remember the “implied” mission statement US aviators had of their Regulator. - “We are not happy until you are not happy”. Steve was the total opposite, he was not happy until our members were happy.

We have a very able temporary acting Tec manager, so things can carry on as normal until we appoint a permanent replacement.

The Board meeting itself. – Some of the more important issues follow.

Junior pilots. – Well what a can of worms this turned out to be after legal advice. CASA and all the other countries in the western world have no minimum age requirements to commence flying training, however they all have a minimum age for the issue of an official student pilot certificate. We didn’t. So it was theoretically possible to have an official student pilot who was only one year old. We did have a couple that were only nine. This had to be fixed and the minimum age for a Student Pilot Certificate is now set at fourteen years. This placed us in line with the requirements of other major recreational aviation countries.

But that was not the end of it. From our legal advice on that matter we came up with another serious problem. Our constitution is apparently at odds with the ACT regulations (where we are incorporated) Under the act members of an Association under 18 must not have voting rights. We have no such membership category in our Constitution and this must be fixed ASAP.

Magazine hold back. Many members have complained to me over the years that our magazine is available in the newsagent before they get their copy in the post. My belief is members are more important than walk-ins at a newsagent and we should hold back delivery of the magazine to the newsagents by one week to allow our members to get their copy first. Again I proposed a motion to this affect, but this time I made the hold back time 5 days instead of 7 days. The motion was again lost.

Pre purchase inspections. Some years ago the Board brought in a requirement for pre purchase inspections to be conducted by a level 2. This created a legal issue with our Level 2 maintenance providers. The inspections were always meant to be a “condition report”, not a statement that the aircraft was fit to fly. There was a lot of uncertainty here. This also was against our policy of not being more onerous than GA. (GA do not require inspections) This requirement is now removed. It now comes back to the GA system of “Buyer beware”. By all means get pre purchase inspections done, but now you can use whomever you choose.

Flight over built up areas. You all must be aware that flight over built up areas in 19 category aircraft is forbidden unless individual written permission is given. This will only be given to aircraft that meet certain requirements, one is having an approved engine. Permission can only given by an approved CASA delegate. This delegation approval ceased with the departure of Steve Bell. For the immediate future there will be no more approvals given.

Of a more serious nature, there is a push by some working for the regulator, (under the new part 61) which will ban all single engine flights over built up areas. GA, commercial, and RA-Aus. We all must be vigilant here.

Remember if you do have approval to fly over built up areas, that is just the start. There are the other requirements that must be followed, such as flight above 1,000 feet AGL, and the ability to glide clear should there be an engine failure.

Recreational Pilot’s License. This is progressing under Part 61, and is viewed as a threat by many in RA-Aus, however, philosophically; I personally don’t believe we should seek to be a monopoly in Rec Aviation and campaign against an RPL. We should look for opportunities here instead. Sure it will affect us in the short term, but it will make us work harder, and provide more and better benefits to retain current members and gain new members. (As a side note we now have almost 11,000 members and 3,500 registered aircraft on our books.

Web site development. Our last contract to do this turned out to be unsatisfactory. We have now contracted another firm to upgrade our web site, so hopefully in the near future you will see some positive changes.

Accident Investigation. It has been my opinion that we should strive to get our accident investigators back under the wing of ATSB (where we were some years ago before the new regulations) I and another Board member had some very positive discussion with the director of ATSB on this matter. If certain requirements are met this could become achievable. On going discussions will now be held with ATSB. This won't happen overnight, but we have started the process.

2012 AGM. To enable our members greater opportunity to attend our AGM’s the Board resolved to occasionally hold these outside Canberra. Now I know many of you wish these to be held at Natfly, but currently we have legal issues with this because of our Constitution and financial timeframes. There is also a significant extra cost involved. But in time with enough member support these issues can be overcome.

The 2012 AGM will be held in Southern Queensland, most probably the Gold coast on Saturday September 22. Please put this date in your diary and attend if at all possible. It is your association.

John McKeown

South Queensland Board Member

Excessive Secrecy

2011-03-11T06:49:00.002+10:00

Excessive Secrecy

My personal philosophy as a Board member is one of Honesty, Openness, Transparency, and Accountability. There are some who believe all Board business should, by default, be totally secret. To me excessive secrecy breeds corruption, laziness, nepotism, and many other ills. It also facilitates non accountability.

There has been a real campaign (led by the Secretary) to make all Board members sign a Confidentially Agreement. I am the last holdout. My refusal to sign was based on a members entitlement. In the past any member of this association has had the right to sit in and observe any Board meeting unless it was of a real sensitive nature and the Board went "In Camera". I have no issue with secrecy in "in camera" sessions, and I believe in confidentially in the Board Forum. But by signing the form I would be giving up my rights as an ordinary member, and I would not be able to inform my constituents of issues of concern.

Rather than promote transparency and accountability, a motion was put forward by the Secretary, and passed, at the February meeting to remove this abnormality. Now all members who wish to sit in as observers at a Board meeting must sign this secrecy form.

Our Association is a Democratic Association. If the majority believe in excessive secrecy, then that is the way it should be and I will sign the form.

However, I get constant complaints about secret Board business. Well here is your opportunity. If you (The members) don't believe in excessive secrecy then do something about it. Get this motion repealed or voided at the Natfly meeting. Ask your local Rep did they vote for the motion and why.

Information and Accountability

One of the best ways for members to know what is going on and to have accountability of their local Rep is to have access to, and read the meeting minutes. By reading the minutes you will be able to see what business was conducted, what your Rep brought to the meeting, and how he/she voted on the various motions. This gives accountability.

My challenge to you.

If you as a member wants to be better informed on the management of your association then demand all meeting minutes be posted (published) no later than 14 days from the date of the meeting. If the minutes can't be ratified in that time then they be published with the watermark "Not Ratified" in them. Many other associations and local authorities have their minutes up on the Web within days of the meetings. The latest minutes have the "Not Ratified" watermark in them. We should be doing the same

To read Board meeting minutes 8 to 10 months later (if you can get them) is way past yesterdays news. If members really want to know what is going on they need to see this information now. How can members voice disapproval of a decision if they don't know about it, and finding out about it in 10 months is far too late.

It is over to you, the ordinary members. If you don't want excessive secrecy and you want accountability then do something. You, as a group can make it happen

John McKeown

Proposed change to the Constitution - Another opinion

2010-08-25T16:37:00.002+10:00

Dear Rag and Tubers,

I have asked J ohn Mc if I could write a second opinion on the issue of the constitutional change. When the Constitution was written, it was by amateurs who

Neglected to put everything IN the constitution to reflect what they actually did in the representative distribution. They decided that all states should have at least one rep (this is what they didn’t put in the constitution), then

Additional reps were allocated according to member population. 25 years ago when this happened, QLD had the lion’s share of members, so they got the lions share of reps. 25 years later, Vic and NSW and QLD have approx the

Same membership, but QLD has 4, and Vic has 2. MEMBERS asked the Board why we hadn’t engaged in electoral re-distribution which is a fact of life. So this proposal was put forward from the committee as a response to members and

As a response to the intent of the original writers of the constitution. J ohn’s proposal, is a bit of a red herring, I feel (sorry J M). That’s not what is on the table. He is arguing we could keep it unfair and unequal because he wants something different. Let’s deal with what is on the table. J ohn can get another committee and try to get up his proposal – (which is a bit mean since Tasmania , WA, NT and SA will never get a rep on the Board in his system- and the reps from those states and a number of others will howl it down). So I encourage you to Vote in favour of the proposed change.

Cheers, Carol Richards, NSW member (Thanks J ohn for doing this)

Above is an opinion by Carol Richards, our hard working Board Member from NSW. If there are other opinions I will also publish them. It is very healthy to have all sorts of different opinions. But as this is my Blog I reserve the right to make comment.

1. Two members only asked the Board why a redistribution was not done. One was Max Brown, who did a lot of work on our Constitution. His original proposal was much closer to our stated aim of "one vote one value" and would include Tasmania into Victoria and NT in with SA. This second proposal surprises me knowing Max's knowledge of the Constitution.

2. I have never proposed any change to the voting. I do not have any future proposal. My only issue is, this change, in my opinion, is NOT Constitutional. It does not aim for a one vote one value representation.

3. If the membership wants a State Based system (and that has merit) then they should vote to repeal the "one vote one value" clause and replace it with a State based clause. All associations live or die by their Constitutions. To bastardize the stated clauses in the Constitution to appease special interests is a recipe for disaster.

4. My understanding of our Constitution, is it is based on the standard non profit sporting constitution given to us by the ACT Government, and modified by some very knowledgeable members. I would see it as not entirely Amateur.

5. If there are other opinions please email me and I will publish them here.

John McKeown

Proposed Change to Constitution

2010-08-24T16:34:00.005+10:00

Hi All.

Coming up in September you will be asked to vote on a change to the Constitution. Please consider how you will vote and the ramifications of your vote. You, the members, are the association, it is you who decide the direction of the association, so whatever you decide please vote.

Now for my view.

The Constitution is very specific on this matter and I quote the relevant section below.

13. Election of Board Members.
(i) The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member - one vote system."

That statement is very specific yet there are members of the executive and others who are muddying the waters by claiming the vote needs to also be State based and want a gerrymander voting system.

Like Nick Sigley, I am also uncertain as to how the membership numbers were arrived at as were published in the magazine, however the August 2010 figures are approx. Queensland 2444, NSW, 2415, Vic. 2185, SA 1079, WA. 622 , Tas. 277. NT. 148, ACT 138. The total membership, including international members is approx. 9337. Currently ACT and NSW are combined for representation purposes giving NSW 2553 members. NQ and SQ are separated for representation purposes, and these figures can't be obtained, but an upper estimate could be around 300 members in NQ.

I fully agree there needs to be a redistribution. But not this one. How can anyone really claim to be following a "one vote, one value" voting system where the new system will have the member from Tasmania representing only 277 members, NT 148 members, and NQ approx 300. While SQ will be 1200 approx, SA 1079 approx, Vic 728 approx, NSW 800 approx. and WA 622 approx.

My personal view is VOTE NO

Any change must be close to a one vote one value redistribution as per the Constitution. A redistribution needs to be redone on a one vote one value, without some powerful members pushing the "State" based model. NQ should also be abolished and SQ should perhaps include parts of northern NSW. The representation model should be based on a post code model to give as equal voting as possible.

However the members decide. So please vote. A change to the constitution with a 5% to 7% vote is a farce. I implore you again to vote.I personally witnessed the last change to the Constitution at the AGM 3 years ago with 7 raised hands, and no provision for postal votes.

John McKeown

Vigilance

2010-02-27T10:12:00.001+10:00

Hi all,

A couple of points have come up from the February Board Meeting that need Vigilance by our members.

ADSB - This is back on the agenda. The upper air program has been implemented with an operational date of 2013. There is extremely strong pressure from the airlines to the authorities to implement ADSB now into the lower airspace. This will affect ALL of us. We must be very vigilant.

Airport Trigger Points. - Also from the airlines and CASA as a "safety issue". There are moves to have trigger points related to RPT movements into small airports. What this means is that when a certain airport has an RPT movement or volume ratio that reaches the "Trigger" point, that airport and the airspace around it, will be declared Class D airspace. This trigger point is rumored to be very low. This will exclude all our members who do not have a PPL license from the airport and the airspace around it. Once again we need vigilance from the membership.

ELT'S - There has been some concern about the mandatory requirement to carry 406 ELT'S from this March. I questioned Jim Coyne from CASA about this and his reply was that the CAO (Civil Aviation Order) mandating this requirement still has not been issued, and that after it is issued the standard twelve months grace period for compliance will apply. So in simple terms there is no mandatory requirement to carry 406 ELT's this year.
Note. Be aware that it is now illegal to activate the old 121.5 MHz units.

Rego. Stickers. - There is also some confusion about this requirement. Last year the board agreed to the requirement to have registration stickers. The reason for this is it had been found that there were many reported cases of unregistered aircraft flying. In most cases these were unintentional, but placed the owner at great risk not only from the regulator, but also from ligation should there be an accident or incident. In fact in recent years there were cases of aircraft judged to win prizes at Natfly, that were later disqualified because they were found to be unintentionally unregistered. It is hoped that the sticker will be a reminder to those, who for one reason or other, have forgotten to re-register their aircraft, and to provide a peer pressure means to encourage those who want to "free load" on our association to re-register.

There was no intention to have an AN, and this will be removed. The requirement is to have a sticker that is visible from outside the aircraft only. You can put the sticker wherever you choose, but it would be preferable to be on the left hand side of the aircraft. This is intended to be in its flying condition, so if an aircraft has covers at night that is OK.

John McK

Duct Tape

2010-02-03T11:14:00.003+10:00

Hi All

I actually bought the video of this incident at Oshkosh.

When I posted this on the blog site the photos became cropped and I don't know how to fix it.

To see the full photo, right click on the photo and select "view image" - sorry.

Best duct tape story ever

During a private "fly-in" fishing excursion in the Alaskan wilderness, the chartered pilot and fishermen left a cooler and bait in the plane. And a bear smelled it. This is what he did to the plane.

The pilot used his radio and had another pilot bring him 2 new tires, 3 cases of duct tape, and a supply of sheet plastic. He patched the plane together and FLEW IT HOME!

Duct Tape? Never Leave Home Without It

RA-Aus AGM

2010-01-27T09:58:00.002+10:00

To All RA-Aus members in Southern Queensland,

I am trying to gain support from the membership to hold our AGM at Natfly each year rather than before the the September Board Meeting.

I have only been a Board member for a little over two years but in that short time I am appalled by the poor attendance of members at our AGM. A handful of members (apart from staff and the Board) is a good turnout. The last AGM had only 3 "external" members present.

To me this is totally unacceptable but understandable.

The AGM is held on a Friday afternoon, in Canberra, in September. Who, apart from Canberra residents with flexible working hours could attend?

By having the AGM at Natfly it would allow a far greater member participation.

Far more members would be be present to hear and read the reports that are presented, and more importantly, make comment, and have input into the running of the Association.

The Board Meeting and Executive elections should continue to be in September. This way, if the Executive promises some outcome to the membership at Natfly, it still has at least 5 months or so to deliver. Under the current system, the President or Executive may promise some outcome at the AGM, and a few hours later (after the elections) they are no longer on the Executive.

Please give me your thoughts.

John McKeown

New Executive Director / CEO for RA-Aus

2010-01-19T19:46:00.000+10:00

The RA-Aus Executive chose, and the Board, as a whole, approved a new ED/CEO for the Association. Lee Ungerman resigned for family reasons and has moved to Queensland and will have a new position as Northern Ops Manager.

The new CEO is Robbie Costmeyer. Robbie has a Military and Aviation technical background. He has also managed operational aspects of semi-privatization of the Government Aircraft Factory and has been the CEO of MS Society.

Staff Salaries

2009-12-17T13:13:00.004+10:00

There has been a lot of reaction (good and bad) over my report on the recent staff salaries increases.

To try and keep members better informed and to try and stop some confusion by the membership, and at the same time not divulge actual salaries, perhaps I could repeat a couple of statements I made to the board re the salaries, before going in camera to discuss the actual amounts. This information was available to any member who wished to be an observer at the meeting (and from memory there were 2 member observers present)

I made a statement to the effect that our staff are our greatest asset and virtually no individual thinks they are paid too much. But we are a non profit association, funded in the main by member subscriptions, and we must live within our means. I tried to explain that the large salary increases sought by the CEO were, in my opinion, excessive. (particularly after the increases just 12 months previously). I stated that from my experience in business employee cost blowouts can destroy a business, and more modest increases should be granted. There is a major problem with a business like ours that grants yearly salary increases. You get the issue of "The compounding of the wages bill" Anyone who understands "compounding" will know what I mean.

We do not pay salary's that one could get in private industry, or in some branches of Government. But all wages are relevant. A well paid person would think our wages are very low, while a lower paid person would think our wages are generous.

However, to try and generalize, I also made the following statement at the Board meeting. "That if you were a department head at one of our senior high schools, (I can only speak for Qld) or a senior university lecturer with 2 degrees and a masters degree and over 30 years service you would find it financially rewarding to come and work for us."

John McK

QUESTION : In the interest of transparency and openness, and to stop wild guessing games, should we publish the salaries of our CEO and managers like is done for all public companies?

I work for you, the South Queensland members. Can I get some feedback please.

RA-Aus AGM 2009

2009-11-23T12:47:00.002+10:00

The RA-Aus AGM and a board meeting was held last weekend.

It is concerning to see such a poor turnout of members for the AGM, but I understand the issues of members getting to Canberra on a Friday. Perhaps it would be better to see the AGM held at Natfly. Comments please.

You can see an edited version of the Treasure's report as a previous post on this Blog site.

The Board members spent a very interesting and productive day at a workshop run by AeroSafe on Industry Risk Profile and Corporate Governance. The workshop was funded by CASA, and from my point of view, money well spent.

The Action Group's motion.

"That the RA-Aus Board, where it is practical, first communicate to members, matters which will have a significant and/or adverse affect on the privileges, financial, or operational obligations of the membership" became motion 2009/74. Moved by me, and seconded by Ed Smith from WA. - Passed.

One item of important note to me was the repeal of a previous motion on confidentially. Excessive secrecy is a real "thing" with me, and I have continuously refused to sign the form requiring secrecy of Board Meetings. Until this meeting where the the new Board Member from Victoria (Ian Baker) also refused to sign I was the only member not to sign. I have no issues with secrecy when "In Camera" But to keep secret other issues discussed at a Board meeting leads to all sorts of corruption and moral issues. I am of the view that everything is transparent to the general membership by default, and only the most contentious and "in progress" issues should be kept secret. "At this stage". Not forever.

This requirement, in my opinion, was also against the constitution. Every single member of the RA-Aus has a constitutional right to attend Board Meetings as an observer, and has a right to the the proceedings without secrecy being applied. Vigilance of the general membership is very important and I urge any member who is able to sit in and observe a Board Meeting to make every effort to do so.

John McKeown
RA-Aus Board Member Southern Queensland

Treasurer's Report 2009

2009-11-23T08:34:00.006+10:00

Below is an edited version of my Treasurer's Report to the 2009 AGM.

RA-Aus Treasurer’s Report
AGM 2009

Revenue

For the first time our turnover exceeded two million dollars. Our adjusted revenue for F09 was $2,050,681, up from $1,880,088 in F08.

Our expenses for F09 were $1,619,780.

Some of this increase in revenue was due to extra Government funding, which was approx. $130K for last year. (Normally CASA provide us with a grant of $100K to self administer around 4000 aircraft and around 9000 pilots)

The RAA Shop is underperforming. (I have my own views here for the meeting) The shop is well down on budget (around 30%) and down over $22K on last years sales.

Overall we have had a very good year in difficult financial times.

Expenses

Employee expenses were $651,410, up $142,681 on last year. There will be more detailed discussion on this matter in the meeting. I have proposed a realistic increase in employee salaries, and budgeted to cover a Brisbane based Operations Area Manager should this be agreed on.

I would like to give our staff big pay increases, but I know from experience how this can rapidly get out of hand. Remember it is not just the salary increase but the add on costs as well. When comparing wages in other industries we must compare like with like. Many companies now talk of “packaged” salaries. I know from my business experience where a too rapid rate of wage increases (and hence increased add on costs) can, and will, cripple a business. It is the “rate” of increase, not the actual amount of increase that causes the problems.

Our insurance costs are $30K under budget due to our new insurer and new agreement which goes straight onto the bottom line.

One large distorting expense item was an $80K Magazine bill for F09 that actually went into the F10 period, which will distort our surplus above somewhat.
.

One issue which has not happened in the past is keeping a separate bank account for staff entitlements. Currently this is all lumped into our general bank accounts, but this is money that doesn’t belong to us. I have asked Maxine to open up a separate account for this purpose. Almost every week you hear of cases where a business has spent the employee entitlements money. Currently this figure is around $100K

Telephone and postage expenses are up significantly over last year and may need some consideration to keep the rate of increase under control. The Board telecard costs have always been included in the general office phone account. It is not right to put Board phone costs into the office phone expenses, so I have asked Maxine to take this expense out of office expenses and put it into Board expenses.

Balance Sheet

Our balance sheet shows the RAA with a total equity of $2,397,170. This includes our building now valued at $1,100,000.

Carried forward as a liability is our prepaid membership. I have asked Maxine to open up a separate account for this money as well. It is future money and must be allocated forward to the years where it belongs. It is not money to spend now.

(I do not like this 2 year membership thing, as it leads to real accounting issues in the office. This will become a nightmare when we start to get 2 year renewals coming through. There is also the real problem of a human tendency to spend money you have on hand that is not really yours to spend at this time. Many a good business or association has gone broke by going for prepaid money. Once you start to depend on next years receipts to pay this years expenses you are on the road to disaster. My recommendation is we seriously consider canceling this option.)

At this stage it is very hard to track our year on year renewals because of the two year distortion factor.

Holbrook Museum

There needs to be discussion on the Museum. (The museum have asked for a loan.) My personal view is we stay well away from the loan business. If we were to make a significant loan to the Museum, we must protect our members money with collateral. This becomes very messy, and a loan default lumbers us with the fallout.

I propose we offer the Museum a grant. Something like $10K to $15K would seem reasonable at this time.

GYFTS.

The youth are our future. I propose we offer a grant here also. Equal to the Museum grant.

Lee (our CEO) did a great job in sourcing a better bank deal. We changed from St George to Westpac. The CEO and office staff could not get the one dedicated person at St George to look after our accounts, and their fees were going through the roof, up nearly 300% in one year (from $3.5K in F08 to $8.3K in F09)

With Westpac we have a dedicated account manager, and absolutely no account keeping fees on any of our accounts. We are however charged certain transaction fees, and fees like Overdraw and dishonor fees. We are also paid interest on the above accounts of between 3.05% and 3.8%

Of general interest for those with shares in St George. The local branch lost around $1.5M in deposits from us and didn’t even bother to come around or even phone to find out why!!! (Perhaps they consider $1.5M pocket change or nuisance deposits)

Proposed Fiscal 2010 Budget

Enclosed is a draft of the F10 budget. I have budgeted for a surplus of $165K.

However we must also look at restraining the rate of expenses growth
The proposed F10 budget is a Draft only and has yet to be ratified by the board.

Finally I would like to offer thanks to Lee, Maxine (our finance officer), and our office staff for the efficient running of our finances.

John McKeown
RA-Aus Treasurer.

Treasurer’s Special Report to the members at the 2009 AGM

November 2009 special AGM

This is a special update report I would like to bring up to the membership.

I am concerned that the rate of increase in Employee Expenses is unsustainable.

Our mission statement says “Minimum Bureaucracy” yet in the last two years we have allowed a significant increase in bureaucracy to occur, without a similar corresponding increase in our membership. I must state here that some of this increase in bureaucracy has been forced on us by CASA, but the majority appears to be of our making.

In Fiscal 08 our employee expenses were $508,729. In Fiscal 09 these costs jumped to $651,410, and in Fiscal 10 they are estimated to reach $825,000. This is an increase in two years of over $361K. Or an increase of 62%. All this with our membership remaining fairly static.

Of real concern to me as Treasurer, was the large salary increases granted by the Board at the recent September meeting. When most Australians received little or no wage increases in 2009 due to the economic climate, the board, as a whole chose to approve increases of between 8% for junior office staff, and up to 25% for managers. On top of these increases we must now budget for all the “add on” costs. I am the first to agree that our staff are our greatest asset, but we are a non profit association, funded in the main by member fees. It is my personal belief that we must live within our means.

However it can also be argued that we need to pay the right money to gain and keep the right staff. I see it as my duty as your treasurer to bring this matter to your attention. What you choose to do with this information is entirely up to you. You are the membership. You are the association.

To bring this into perspective we really must look at the cost per individual member.

In previous years our employee cost per member was running at around $56 to $57 per member. This jumped to $68 per member in F09 and I now estimated this to hit $90 per member in F10. An increase of over 60% in just two years.

As treasurer I believe we must seriously address the rate of increase in our employee costs. If it can be shown that some of the increase is due to CASA requirements then I believe we need to seek some cost recovery from CASA. But we, as an association need to “own” this issue, and deal with it appropriately.

Graph of employee costs per individual member over time.

Finally, I won’t be seeking re-election as Treasurer, but I would urge the incoming treasurer to be very vigilant to prevent our costs getting out of proportion to our membership levels.

However, we are an association, and you people, our membership, may be quite comfortable with these increases. But I believe, as un popular as it may be for me, it is my duty as your Treasurer to bring this matter to the attention of the membership.

John McKeown
RAA Treasurer.

Nov 2009

Gympie Aero Club Invitation

2009-10-18T17:19:00.000+10:00

Subject: Dinner with John McCormick C.E.O CASA

Hi John

It was good to catch up with you today,as promised here are the details re the Gympie Aero Club hosting an evening that features as our keynote speaker John McCormick the C.E.O of CASA which will be held at the Australis Resort at Noosa Heads on Saturday the fifth of December.

A three course meal will be served starting with drinks at 5.30 pm.This will be a wonderful opportunity to not only hear about John's flying career in his speech but to find out what future plans CASA has instore for us over the next five years which will be of interest to both GA and RAA pilots.

The opening speaker for the evening will be Brad Smart the C.E.O.of the Smart Radio Group who is a pilot and ex television and radio journalist who has reported from many of the hotspots around the world plus interviewed celebrities from Australia and overseas.

Affordable accommodation has been arranged at the resort starting at $132 per night for a studio unit and our club will offer free transport to and from YGYM if required.

This will be an exciting evening with excellent speakers,good food and the ideal time to mix with fellow aviators,plus enjoy the delights of Noosa.

Tickets are limited so please do not hesitate to contact myself becky@airnoosa.com or Deb deb@frogshollow.net for further information and bookings.

The cost will be $75 per person and we shall look forward to seeing you on the night,and thank you for your offer of helping us to pass this info on to other RAA pilots and groups.

Regards

Jennifer Beck

President

Gympie Aero Club

0419784715

19 Cat. Aircraft and Built up Areas

2009-09-18T06:18:00.003+10:00

There seems to be some confusion with 19 Category Aircraft flying over built up areas.

To clarify matters. 19 Category aircraft are forbidden from flying over any township or any built up area in the first instance.

There are exceptions, but it is on an individual case by case basis.

In the past the requirement was.

1. Your amateur built aircraft must be built from a recognized and approved kit.

2. It must have an "approved" engine and propeller.

3. You must get written permission from CASA or our Technical Manager.

4. Only after complying with the above requirements is it legally permissible to fly over a built up area. (above 1,000 feet AGL and high enough to glide clear in the case of engine failure)

Previously aircraft like the Terrier (above) or a Bushcaddy with a Subaru engine would not be approved. Subaru engines are not approved engines. Aircraft with a Herth engine like a Challanger would not get approval.

This was a negative impact on a number of our aircraft. Those members with affected aircraft can now get approval from the Technical Manager even if you have a non approved engine and propeller. Steve Bell has worked to rectify this problem of the past.

Those people with affected aircraft who have not received written approval, should do so now, and need to be aware of the legal ramifications of flying out of towns like Boonah, or Cabolture where in the process of taking off and landing you can't avoid flying over some built up areas.

Approval can be obtained by emailing the Technical Manager with the relevant data.

ELB Compulsory Requirement

2009-04-19T06:06:00.002+10:00

Hi All,

Please read the following and let the RA-Aus know your views ASAP

John McK

Dear Sport & Recreational Aviation Standards Sub-committee Members,

CASA is proposing to remove the formal exemption in the sport/recreational aviation CAOs relating to CAR 252A (carriage of ELTs) as part of its present CAO review. It is proposed that the general exemptions, and the exclusions built into CAR 252A, would continue to apply.

ELT prices continue to fall and the benefits of ELT carriage are gaining acceptance in the sport/recreational aviation community, CASA proposes to continue to monitor developments in this area whilst applying CAR 252A to the recreational aircraft sector without exclusions that go beyond those already beyond those already stated in the CAR.

This means that two seat aircraft operated under CAO 95.55 (RA-Aus aeroplanes), 95.32 (RA-Aus and HGFA trikes) and 95.12.1 (ASRA 2-seat gyroplanes) would be required to carry an ELT for all flights beyond 50 nm from takeoff.

Whilst CAR 252A excludes single-place aircraft, aircraft travelling within 50 nautical miles of their starting point and some other aircraft classes including balloons and gliders from being required to be equipped with an ELT, there have been exemptions extant for aeroplanes and gyroplanes under sport/recreational aviation CAOs.

Exemptions from ELT carriage have existed in sport/recreational CAOs since the time that such aircraft were confined to small areas either by aircraft capability or by restrictions inherent in CAOs as they existed at that time. Aircraft capabilities have increased over time and so have the freedoms allowed by more recent iterations of the CAOs. With these new freedoms comes a responsibility for people who wish to access the freedoms.

Increased cross country capability of sport/recreational aircraft, the breadth of general exemption available in the CAR and radically decreasing costs of ELTs/PLBs means that CASA now has difficulty justify exempting such aircraft from this requirement. Also considered are the risks to search and rescue personnel of conducting a rescue and the costs to society as a whole for a rescue.

CASA proposes the CAOs wording be future proofed by the requirement for an ELT or CASA approved alternative. This would allow CASA to broadly approve alternate technologies for operators of aircraft under an instrument or provide specific approvals to operators to use alternate equipment as circumstances dictate. It is proposed that operators of aircraft covered by this new requirement would have until 31 May 2010 to comply with the new requirements.

CASA has contacted the organisations whose members will be affected and now seeks wider aviation community feedback on this proposal.

The extract below is provided for the purpose of informing this discussion but the regulation should be read in its entirety for operational purposes and is available at this link www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/act_regs/1988.pdf

252A Emergency locator transmitters
(1) The pilot in command of an
Australian aircraft that is not an exempted aircraft may begin a flight
only if the aircraft:
(a) is fitted with an approved ELT:
(i) that is in working order; and……………

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply in relation to a flight by an Australian
aircraft if:
(a) the flight is to take place wholly within a radius of 50 miles from
the aerodrome reference point of the aerodrome from which the
flight is to begin; ……………

exempted aircraft means:
…
(e) a balloon; or
(f) an airship; or
(g) a glider;

single seat aircraft means an aircraft that is equipped to carry only one
person;

Please provide any comments by cob Friday 1st May by reply to this message or by email to (Removed by blog author)

Regards,

Greg Vaughan

Serious NTSB report on Zodiac CH-601XL

2009-04-17T07:11:00.004+10:00

All owners of the CH-601 XL are advised to read this NTSB report released 2 days ago.

Note. 1. The fatalities do not include the 4 deaths from the two inflight incidents in Australia which are still before the Coroner.

2. There appears to be other than just canopy issues with the 601.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/090414a.html

Famous Trumpet Player gets Drifter Training

2009-04-02T05:46:00.004+10:00

Lighthearted Post

After learning that you will never, ever, really make it as an aviator unless you have Drifter training. Famous trumpet player, and accomplished aviator, James M, decided he needed some Drifter training to really make it as one of that select band of pilots with Drifter PIC time.

James came to Greg's school at Boonah to gain those special skills possessed only by Drifter trained pilots.

Ed Note. Australia's first and only, "Red Bull" pilot. Our fast jet military pilot who saw combat flying F18's over Iraq, got his initial flying skills from being Drifter trained.

CFI Greg, and James with the school Drifter. James is the intelligent looking person with the Trumpet.

Now Greg has the trumpet.

There is a very old Chinese proverb.

"Can teach Trumpet player fly Drifter. Not ever possible teach Boonah CFI play Trumpet"

Disgraceful Reporting

2009-01-19T06:28:00.000+10:00

Late last year we had another GA aircraft crash which resulted death.

Now enter Paul Bibby from the Sydney Morning Herald. (See link below) He wrote the most disgracefull piece of rubbish about "US". Australian Recreational Aviators. Please remember this man's name, and watch out for more rubbish coming out of his head, and into the newspaper that employs him.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/light-plane-deaths-up-more-than-50-20081229-76ty.html

See below the reply by our CEO, Lee Ungermann.

Mr Paul Bibby,

RE: http://www.theage.com.au/national/light-plane-deaths-up-more-than-50-20081229-76ty.html

I do not believe you tried very hard to verify any of the facts presented in your article. This article was a deliberate attempt to link non-related aircraft deaths with our weight increase proposal and yet another example of non-truth made to fit a good story. Had you have bothered to verify the facts you presented in the article then you would have realised that your article was not only wrong in many respects but also extremely damaging to the SMH and the Ages credibility. Had you taken the time to contact the office, myself or our President on numbers readily available on the newsstand or on our website, we would have been more than happy to present facts for you to use in your article.

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.(RA-Aus) has always tried to build credible relationships with the media, however when first principles of journalism are not adhered to, such as establishing fact, it is difficult for any organisation not to be reactionary.

Here are some facts you may wish to take note of:

1. Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. does not register Glider or Gryo Pilots.

2. The proposed weight increase does not include Gliders or Gyros.

3. Recreational Aviation does not administer Crop Dusters, CASA does.

4. There is not a significant number of Ultralight aircraft represented in the accident statistics.

5. In the past twelve months(2008) only one fatal accident occurred involving an aircraft on our register.

6. 2008 was one of the safest years in the last ten years, despite being the greatest growth area in General Aviation in Australia.

7. Aircraft weighing 600-2250kg are administered by CASA or other self administrating organisations, not Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

8. The Recreational Aviation Training Syllabus is approved by CASA and is based on the Day VFR Syllabus.

9. A Lake Buccaneer is regulated by CASA and is not the responsibility of RA-Aus.

10. RA-Aus is a member based organisation that receives minimal funding from CASA to administer our aircraft and safety.

a. Our members financially support:

i. Our office structure.

ii. Safety Programs.

iii. Accident Investigation.

iv. Flying School Standards.

v. Our presence at Regulatory Development meetings (CASA)

b. Is a non-profit organisation conducting work on behalf of CASA.

11. Recreational Aviation Maintenance safety outcomes are proportional to General Aviation and no safety case exists that owner maintenance is a significant risk to person or public.

The point is Paul , that RA-Aus is administering the largest growth area of aviation in Australia and is doing it safely in comparison to many other areas of aviation in Australia. Your accident statistics demonstrate that there was an increase in fatalities, so I have no issue with your title or your motivation for the article, but to contact me and falsely claim that the article is about our proposed weight increase is not only deceitful but is a large impact on an area of aviation that is improving its safety record. To report otherwise, without fact, is doing a dies-service to yourself, your readers and also your employers.

The manner in which you sent this email at 8pm the night before(as the article went to print) is also not acceptable and the fact that no contact or indeed a genuine attempt was made with our organisation prior to the articles printing also demonstrates a disregard for the SMH code of ethics. http://www.smh.com.au/ethicscode/index.html . With this in mind, please respect the disclaimer at the bottom of this email.

Right now, 9,000 readers are unhappy with your portrayal of RA-Aus http://www.auf.asn.au/ , the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age. If you are interested in doing what is morally right, I am happy to discuss the facts with you, so that this kind of ambush editorial does not discredit you or your employers in the future.

If the SMH or The Age as your employers are interested in adhering to their code of ethics, I would be pleased to discuss this with them also.

Regards

Lee Ungermann

Chief Executive Officer

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

0428282870 / 02 62 804700

Short Term Win on ADS-B

2008-12-29T11:29:00.002+10:00

We have had a small reprieve on the compulsory introduction of ADS-B into the lower airspaces where it would have a devastating effect on the way we operate Recreational Aircraft. Remember this is only a short term reprieve, and we must continue to fight the compulsory introduction of ADS-B into the lower airspace.

See below the letter to our CEO. Click on image for a larger view.

Justification For Change

2008-11-10T17:02:00.003+10:00

Below is part of our submission to CASA for a weight increase. Both new and older members may be interested in this section as it details our history and safety stats.

Sorry, I can't seem to bring over the graphs.

John McK

JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

HISTORY

CAO 95.10 was introduced in 1976. The rules were draconian, because it was all about control in the name of safety. In those early days the participants were not allowed to fly above 300' and they were not allowed to use two seat training aircraft. The engines were single ignition two strokes, (at the very beginning converted mower engines) so it is little wonder that untrained pilots who suffered from a sudden loss of noise, stalled at low altitude or had little option but to land straight ahead regardless of terrain and where only limited by the current days rules and red tape.

The fact that anybody survived those first few years is a credit to man's ability, fortitude and ingenuity. The fact that people insisted on re-inventing the wheel was a price that had to be paid to achieve the innovation in regulations, materials, engines and electronics that the movement enjoys today.

HISTORIC FACT

It is also now a historic fact that those very rules, which were put there to "protect" the public in fact, took a heavy toll on the participants.

Explanation of RA-Aus Membership Vs Fatal Accidents.

The repositioning of weight and performance barriers has had no impact on the general public over the history of RA-Aus but has meant huge safety benefits for the pilot/participants.

Ø 1985 CAO 95.25 "Flight Below 300" was raised to 500' and legalised two seat training approved. MTOW was increased to 400 kg. Within two years there was an improvement in the accident statistics. 1985, Fatality to membership ratio 1: 230, two years later 1: 480.

Ø 1990 CAO 95.55: Height limit was raised to 5000', (Higher with operational justification) MTOW 450 kg. Once again within the two year period we see an improvement in the fatal accident record. 1990 1:480, 1992 1:600.

Ø 1993 CAO 101.55 amended to allow 480 kg MTOW in accordance with energy formulae. The improvement trend continues with an improvement in the safety statistics. 1993 1:825, 1995 1:1800.

Ø 1998 CAO 95.55, Introduction of Amateur Built (Experimental), 544 kg MTOW. This was the start of a membership number increase, which has continued until the present day. There was a spike in the accident rate 2002/2003, (almost parallel to the increase in participant numbers), however a perusal of the accidents does not reveal any obvious pattern. They appear to be random events and since then, the trend is once again showing a continuing improvement in safety. The introduction of 544 kg. has allowed the use of four stroke engines and the legal carriage of both extra fuel and passengers.

Ø 2006 CAO 95.55, Introduction of LSA 600 kg. MTOW.

Ø 2006 Introduction of RA-Aus formalised Accident Investigator Training.

Ø 2007 Introduction of Human Factor Training to RA-Aus Instructors.

Ø 2008 Mandatory introduction of Human Factor Training for all Pilots, Instructors and Students.

In the 25 years that RA-Aus/AUF have been keeping records, no member of the public outside the aircraft has suffered any injury caused by an RA-Aus registered aircraft.

This graph is based on an average of 25,000 Class two medicals for both 2005 and 2006 and 6000 RA-Aus members in 2005 and 7000 in 2006.

2005 Private& Business Fatalities = 13 Source ATSB web

ratio 25000: 6000= 24%

24% of 13 = 3.1

2006 Private & Business Fatalities= 20 Source ATSB web

ratio 25000: 7000= 28%

28% of 20 = 5.6

Note:

The use of fixed wing statistics rather than including weight shift statistics is to use similar types of aircraft to get a fair comparison and is based on CASA 1988 Regulations, which delineate between the two groups for licensing purposes. (Group A and Group B ultralights) 2007 -2008 statistics on class 2 medicals was not available at the time of writing.

It should also be remembered that members of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. members are informed participants in their chosen activity. Thus meaning that any participation is under taken at their own risk and that they are aware that the operation of aircraft involves and element of danger.

In the opinion of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. an increase in the MTOW from 600kg to 760kg mitigated by the limitations of 2 occupants only, a stall speed of 45kts in the takeoff configuration and being limited to Day VFR conditions in the opinion of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. does not constitute an increase in risk to the Australian Public or indeed to RA-Aus members themselves. In fact, the greater useable payload that the aircraft is able to legally carry can in fact increase safety in terms of greater carriage of safety related systems (Ballistic Rocket Systems), emergency rations and safety equipment, not to mention the safety benefits of increased range.

Conclusion

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. supports Option 3a without any changes. RA-Aus believes that this option gives the maximum amount of flexibility, authority and autonomy to an RAAO to administer recreational aircraft up to 760kg MTOW.

Option 3a also enables Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. to carry out administration of aircraft up to 760kg MTOW using its current practices, without altering operational procedure to administer aircraft between 600-760kg MTOW under Part 91.

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. proudly supports the view that past increases in MTOW that have been granted to AUF/RA-Aus over the 25 year history of the organisation have systematically enabled greater safety and personal freedoms to many RA-Aus members. Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. regards the weight increase to 760kg MTOW as a further extension of this safety and personal freedom to our membership, whilst giving a section of traditional General Aviation the choice of administration.

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. has established itself as a capable leader in aviation self administration of aviation in Australia and looks forward to the challenges and safety benefits that administration of aircraft up to 760kg MTOW will bring.

In testament of the anticipated safety benefits of the increase to 760kg MTOW, attached as per CASA’s request, is a listing of members that agree with the position of RA-Aus in relation to the weight increase to 760kg. This listing is supplied to assist CASA in the correlation of the results of the DP from RA-Aus and is in addition to the hundreds of responses already received by CASA.

Lee Ungermann

CEO

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

Proposed New Radio Procedures

2008-10-22T06:27:00.000+10:00

New rules for pilots operating at non-controlled aerodromes
New rules relating to minimum required calls by pilots operating at and in the vicinity of all non-controlled aerodromes will be finalised and introduced in the first quarter of 2009.

The rules will replace current regulations which stipulate mandatory calls at designated non-controlled aerodromes, known as CTAF® aerodromes, and for straight-in approaches at all non-controlled aerodromes.

The rules will ensure pilots of radio-equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of all non-controlled aerodromes make the radio broadcasts that are necessary to ensure ongoing safety.

These rules will be designed to establish safety outcomes and provide consistency in radio use. The decision to finalise these rules has been made following extensive consultation with members of the aviation industry and a thorough analysis of current operating arrangements.

The decision also follows recommendations made by a study commissioned by the Office of Airspace Regulation to look at the relative safety benefits of CTAF versus CTAF®.

The study has made several recommendations pertaining to operations at non-controlled aerodromes, including the recommendation that a limited number of radio calls be mandated.

The CASR Part 91 Control Board was also asked to review recommendations relating to radio calls, made as part of a National Airspace System (NAS) 2c post -implementation review conducted in 2006 to provide advice to CASA on what radio calls should be made.

CASA also sought advice from the Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) through two sub-committees: the Operational Standards Sub-committee and the Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group.

CASA’s priority is the safety of passenger transport operations. CASA is confident the decision to mandate minimum required radio calls in the regulations will provide guidance and consistency to pilots and ensure passenger safety is maintained.

From early 2009, pilots of radio equipped aircraft will be required to make the radio calls that are necessary for safety purposes when operating at or in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome.

At a minimum, radio calls will be required:

When the aircraft enters the "vicinity of an aerodrome"
Immediately before joining the circuit pattern or, in the case of a straight-in approach, at least 5 nm from the threshold of the runway
Immediately before, or during, taxiing
Immediately before entering a runway.
Regarding aircraft that are operating in the “vicinity of an aerodrome,” a call will be required at 10 nm or eight minutes flying time from the aerodrome, whichever occurs first.

This rule will apply not only to aircraft that are inbound to the aerodrome, but also to aircraft that are overflying the aerodrome or simply transiting through this airspace, if the aerodrome is depicted in the aeronautical charts and the aircraft is flying at a height that could put it in conflict with aerodrome traffic.

The regulations, aeronautical information publications and industry education publications will all be updated to ensure they contain consistent requirements and advice on radio broadcasts at non-controlled aerodromes.

A Notice of Final Rule Making (NFRM) will be issued as soon as legal drafting can be completed, with the expectation that the new rules will be introduced in early 2009.

CASA will provide extensive training and education for pilots on the new rules, prior to their introduction.

Also, feedback is now sought from industry on the remainder of the recommendations from the CTAF versus CTAF® study. Written comments on those recommendations are sought by Monday, 1 December, 2008.

You can contribute your feedback either by e-mail to: info_oar@casa.gov.au or to The Office of Airspace Regulation, GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601.

AMBERLEY AIRSHOW

2008-10-05T20:22:00.006+10:00

The RA-Aus had a display at the Amberley Airshow on the weekend of October 4th and 5th. We had an excellent position right in front of the control tower and at this stage I don't know the gate figures but I would estimate about 80,000 people were at the airshow.

We had a very special VIP visit us, and not only learn who we were and what we did but showed an interest in some of our aircraft. Above is Air Vice Marshall Mark Skidmore, Air commander Australia, trying out a Tecnam for size

Our display site before the gates were opened

Our display area after the gates were opened

New Technical Manager Steve Bell at the RA-Aus tent. In the background on the right is the President of the Flying Tigers at Boonah, Brian Melbourne

The RA-Aus display tent

Our high wing aircraft provided a shaded viewing platform for some of the public

We were able to fit in 6 aircraft and our display tent into our allocated plot.

A special thanks to the Boonah pilots who helped man the stand, and answer the thousands of questions from the public.

News Update

2008-09-26T20:25:00.000+10:00

New RA-Aus President. - The RA-Aus has a new President. Eugene Reid from Tasmania. Eugene is not new to the Job having spent a number of years as President in the past.

Changes to CAO's

Project OS 08/13
Early implementation of certain proposed CASR Part 103 standards via CAO

CASA are going to bring forward some of the privileges we were to get in Part 103.

The main items for us are access to CTA/Restricted airspace, and the removal of the 5,000 ceiling for RA-Aus aircraft.

The HGFA will also get access to airspace above 10,000 ft for their hang gliders (provided they are on O2) , thus giving them privileges similar to the GFA

More on ADSB

2008-08-19T06:38:00.002+10:00

I took my first trip to Oshkosh this year, absolutely amazing, but that is another story.

While there I went to a presentation by the FAA on ADSB. First I was surprised by the poor attendance at the presentation and I can offer no explanation why this would be so. Perhaps Americans are apathetic, perhaps they think 2020 is a long way away, or perhaps they don't understand the term "The devil is in the detail"

The FAA and other authorities are well into the roll out with contracts for ground stations signed and work progressing. The FAA asked for industry and pilot submissions and feedback and received over a 90 % NEGATIVE response. But as the roll out was so far advanced I personally got the distinct impression that this "consultation process" was purely only lip service so they could claim "We consulted with pilots and the industry" After the presentation I personally went up to the FAA presenter and talked to him privately. I asked him were there concerns about the extremely negative response. He told me "NO". He said there were 1271 negative and 101 positive submissions. He said they expected much more. Perhaps the American GA pilot fraternity may regret not responding more aggressively on this in the future. It could also be that, say an organization like the EAA with tens of thousands of members responded in the negative, and the FAA classed this as one negative response.

Now to the technical side of things. There are good and bad here. The "good" is this will not become compulsory until 2020 and like in Australia only the uplink (out) will become compulsory. It will only become compulsory above 10,000 ft and it will only apply to "high usage" airports listed in their document 41 CFR part 91

Now the bad. The compulsory (out) must be TSO'd (certified) and maintained by certificated technitions. It must be hard wired (with seal?) and must not be able to be turned off by the pilot. The current cost of available units by approved manufactures (Garmin being one) is US$10,000 PLUS instillation. Instillation alone is many thousands of dollars.

ADSB is to be considered a "primary" and it will also be compulsory to keep and maintain a "secondary" mode C transponder. New aircraft, or those wanting to fly in the ADSB airspace must fit and maintain both ADSB out and Mode C.

Also the current control "steps" will go and a wall will drop down from 10,000 feet to the surface with a radius of 30 miles. Here is some of that "devil in the detail" Those pilots who think they will be able to fly around the US at 1,000 to 5,000 ft and stay out of ADSB airspace by flying under the steps are in for a big shock. If you look at a US aviation chart and put a 30 mile radius around their "RPT" type airports you don't get much "free" airspace left, except in the desert, and the military have a big chunk of that.

Now for the "conspiracy people." Currently there is a big push in the US for "user fees" The Government wants to charge a $25 per flight user fee. This is being strongly resisted by the GA people and is currently held up in Congress and the Senate, but not defeated. President Bush has threatened a veto if some form of user fee on GA is not passed. With ADSB that can't be turned off their Airservices people will be able to not only charge a per flight fee but also a charge per mile fee. As the safety factor for pilots is the "IN" component, the conspiracy people may have a point here in that this is all about tax revenue and surveillance.

Everyone I spoke to including the FAA people privately acknowledge that the primary reason for ADSB is surveillance and income generation, and cost saving on new Radars.

The "conspiracy people" also believe (and this is something I never considered myself before) that it will allow the different US Government agencies to make extensive use of UAV's to fly all all over the US. For what purpose I am not sure.

I also saw ADSB "IN" working. You can currently buy ADSB IN and OUT for $20,000 However the manufactures said that the "IN" component will get very cheap due to competition and the fact that it doesn't have to be certified. It seems to me that if it has to be certified it becomes a license for the manufactures to print money. The massive extra amount they charge for a certified product seems to me, way out of proportion to the extra work of compliance.

We must be very vigilant here in Australia and be prepared to be very political. Once the Government installs a tax income stream it is very hard, if not impossible, to remove. If you don't believe this consider how hard it would be to get the State Governments to remove speed cameras where they are shown to have no safety benefit.

John McKeown

OPS. MANUAL UPDATE

2008-07-10T08:00:00.003+10:00

Hi All,

All RA-Aus members will soon be getting a CD copy of the new Ops. and Technical Manual with the July Magazine. Included will be a "Bonus Section" of John Brandon's excellent Tutorials, an electronic version of AC43.13 "Aircraft Inspection, Repairs and Alterations" and AC90-89A "Amateur Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook, and a copy of CASA Visual Flight Rules.

The new Ops. Manual will become effective on August 1, 2008.

PLEASE, don't ring the office about questions straight away. Even if only 10 % of members ring in that is nearly 1000 inquiries and will totally overwhelm the office staff.

We, the board and office staff copped a lot of flack by a very small minority of members by going electronic here, but we have saved your organization tens of thousands of dollars that can be better spent elsewhere, and have given you a bonus section that would be cost prohibitive to send out in printed form. If you are a special case and don't have access to a computer you can request a printed copy of the manuals only. You won't get the bonus section in print form.

A special thanks needs to go to board member Lynn Jarvis from SA who voluntary did a lot of work on the bonus section.

John McK

Cold Morning Starts

2008-05-30T18:06:00.004+10:00

We all know someone, particularly Jab drivers, who complain about their cold morning start problems. Well after coming across a book by F. Potts " A Guide to Bush Flying" he has a chapter about cold starts in Alaska.

We really have it so, so easy. In fact we have it so easy, we don't even have a problem.

Extracts from "A Guide to Bush Flying"

Section I: Equipment and Environment

Part IV, Chapter 12: Preheating Equipment and Methods

Engine Compartment

“Aviation fuel is distilled with a much lower vapor pressure than automobile fuel so that during the climb to altitude engine failure will not be experienced due to vapor lock. What this means from an operational point of view is that once temperatures get down to -9 degrees C, the engine will require preheating so the fuel can properly vaporize for ignition.” (Aircraft using mogas will experience vapor lock at a much higher temperature) Take note here guys. JM

Compounding the problem, at about -21 degrees C most oils (the exceptions being synthetics like the discontinued Mobil AV-1) become too thick to lubricate the cylinders and bearings properly, and if you could manage to start your engine at this temperature (by heavy priming, or a bit of mild preheating), the wear that would take place until the oil began to flow would probably be equivalent to more than 50 hours of normal operation.

(Mike Busch, the Cessna Pilots Association's engine specialist, claims that one cold start at the lower temperature extremes can cause as much wear as 500 hours of normal cruise operation)

There are no convenient ways around these problems, and, like the FAA and taxes, they are a fact of aviation life

The best bush preheating rig is one that uses a simple old-fashioned gasoline blowtorch that can be operated on avgas taken directly from the airplane's fuel sumps

Blowtorch and stovepipe method. The equipment list for this system consists of a small fire extinguisher, one or two gasoline blowtorches, three lengths of 3" stovepipe, an insulated engine cover, and a two- or five-gallon metal gasoline can. Here is how the system works:

1. After the last flight of the day, the oil is drained from the engine into the gasoline can. Quick-drains should be installed on all airplanes in the fleet to facilitate this daily chore.

2. The can of oil is taken inside your office or home, where it is placed near the stove so it can be kept warm until needed again.

3. When the airplane is to be called into service, the can of oil, with the lid removed, is placed on top of the stove and heated to about 122 degrees F/50 degrees C.

4. While the oil is warming, take the three lengths of 3" stovepipe and fasten them together. Place one end inside the engine compartment and temporarily rest the other end on the ground. The best place for the pipe to go into the Super Cub's engine compartment is on the right side by the brace to the exhaust stack. With the Cessna 180/185, it is best to drop the right cowl-flap and place the pipe there (see illustrations 28 and 31).

5. Carefully light the blowtorch away from the airplane, and when it is operating properly place the nozzle into the lower end of the stovepipe.

With the Cessna 180/185 and 206 you should use two blowtorches, and these must be placed in the same pipe (see illustration 31). Never use two pipes, one going to the right side cowl-flap and the other going to the left side cowl-flap, because of the danger that one of the blowtorches might go out, while still spraying fuel into the stovepipe. The second torch could then ignite the fuel inside the engine compartment. With both torches in the same stovepipe this danger is averted.

6. Adjust the insulated engine cover over the top and sides of the engine compartment so the right cooling air-inlet, behind the prop, is covered and the left air-inlet is open (see illustration 28). This is done to allow the heated air to pass over the engine and out the far side, taking the cold with it. Remember, heat-circulation is the name of the game. When using combustion heaters, if both air-inlets are blocked, it will take longer for the engine to reach starting temperatures.

7. When the engine is warm enough that the prop moves freely and the carburetor or fuel-injector is able to vaporize fuel correctly (about 45 minutes at -4 degrees F/-20 degrees C; 1+20 at -40 degrees F/-40 degrees C), the blowtorch(es) can be turned off and set aside to cool. At this point the hot oil is poured into the engine, three or four shots of priming are given, and the engine is turned over four to six times by hand. It is now ready to go, and should start on the first turn of the prop.

Battery

Cold also affects the battery; at seriously low temperatures it will not have enough power to start the engine. In the bush you must either remove the battery and take it inside for the night so it can be kept warm, or you must handprop the airplane for the first flight of the following day."

And we think we have it bad on cold mornings.

Amberley Airshow 4/5 October 2008

2008-05-27T18:14:00.003+10:00

The RAAF are putting on an Airshow on the 4th and 5th of October. There will be a civilian component where the RA-Aus will have a presence.

Nick Sigley and I will be the organizers for the RA-Aus component, and I in particular would like anyone who has some special ideas on how we can make our group really stand out to pass them on to me on. (0438728311) or send me an email.

John McKeown

Don't Forget Heck Field this Weekend

2008-05-27T11:57:00.002+10:00

Gold Coast Sports Flying Club

The Gold Coast Sports Flying Club, Heck Field, Jacob's Well, we would like to invite you and those around you that may be interested, to a CASA presentation that is being held on Saturday the 31st of May. Safety topics to be covered are operations at non-towered aerodromes and situational awareness, areas that we all need to be familiar with. The seminar will start at 11:30 am and will be presented by a number of aviation safety advisors including Charles Galea. Mike Poole, the Recreational Aviation Australia Operations Manager is also planning to attend subject to the vagaries of his position.

For those who are driving, the venue is located at 1638 Jacob's Well Road and for flyers, Heck Field is situated just south of the Jacob's Well (JCW) VOR and is displayed on both the Brisbane and Gold Coast VTCs. Runways directions are 10/28 and 18/36. On the Sunday there will also be a get together and BBQ commencing at 9:30 am. If you are thinking of coming (on either day) or for further details, please contact the club president, Peter Johnstone on 0430 466 288 or kityhawk@iprimus.com.au . The clubs website, containing some aerodrome information is www.gcsfc.org.au . While I realise that many may not be able to make the journey due to distance or other commitments please pass the message on those who can.

Our Operations Manager Mick Poole will also be in attendance.

Ops. Manual Update

2008-05-13T13:22:00.003+10:00

Hi All,

The new Ops. manual is now at CD proof read stage, and all going well CD's will be burned and sent out with the July Magazine.

Mick Poole has declared August 1st as the implementation date baring unforeseen problems.

There will be a realistic "Grandfather" period for people who have been training under the old Ops. manual. (eg the new cross country increase from 5 to 10 hours.)

John McK

By The Numbers

2008-04-28T10:18:00.002+10:00

I thought members may be interested in some numbers and ratios.

The Government body CASA look after approx 11,000 pilots in Australia. These include ATPL, CPL, and PPL. pilots. To do this they have a staff of approx. 600 people. This is a ratio of 18:1. Pilots as to admin.

The RA-Aus look after approx 9,000 recreational pilots, and do this with a staff of 10. This is a ratio of 900:1

Interesting numbers aren't they?

I truly believe our day to day administration is is far more efficient than any other, but if you have some issue that is not the norm, please look at these ratios and consider cutting the people in Canberra and your elected members a little slack. There are some things in the past we could have done better, but we are trying to do things better month by month, and every year we become a little more professional than the past year.

Rotax Flickering Oil Pressure

2008-04-12T07:12:00.002+10:00

There is a problem appearing in Rotax 912 engines with flickering oil pressure. Three aircraft at my home airfield at Boonah had the problem.

Rotax Australia has appeared, from statements to me by owners, to be somewhat unhelpful in this regard telling the owners the only problem is at Boonah when in fact there have been other reports around Australia of the same problem. Owners have been told all sorts of very expensive fixes including "buy and install a new oil pump"

There are two very experienced engine guys on the field at Boonah and to them the problem is not unique, and easily fixed. The problem is just a weak relief spring (probably a bad batch of outsourced springs), and is easily fixed with some shims. The Rotax factory actually have a shim kit to fix this problem, but people locally have been told to spend bulk dollars on a new oil pump.

One of our members (with air force hydraulic training and experience) and in consultation with one of our very experienced mechanics, fixed his problem by going to the local hardware store and buying a pack of small stainless steel washers to use as shims. Two little washers fixed his problem.

( I will ask M. and B. if they will write a technical explanation to post here)

RA-Aus Official Response to CTAF (R) Establishment

2008-03-18T20:46:00.006+10:00

18/3/08

Mr Peter Cromarty
General Manager
Office of Airspace Regulation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Dear Peter,

RE: Establishment of CTAF (R)
In the past RA-Aus has been a firm supporter of the consultative process undertaken by Airservices Australia and the AERU team with regard to changes of airspace and indeed changes to CTAF(R)s.

RA-Aus also supported the formation of the OAR as we believed that the service provider should not be the regulator as well. However recent events with regard to the OAR’s ‘Blanket’ creation of CTAF(R)s at all Passenger Transport Operation(PTO) Aerodromes have directly shaken our confidence in the consultation process demonstrated by the OAR.

RA-Aus believes that this unilateral move by OAR will destroy years of successful industry consultation. RA-Aus and Industry incur substantial costs to attend a variety of consultative forums of which OAR is only one. If OAR is to disregard the inputs provided by industry during the consultative process than RA-Aus would be better served to take the political route in getting our viewpoint across to Government. The current move to create ‘blanket’ CTAF(R)s is in direct opposition to CASA Directive 1/2007 and also the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) for which no cost benefit or risk management process has been undertaken.

The process used by AERU successfully in the past have been essentially Option 3 and it is the only option under the present Discussion Paper(DP) that conforms to the AAPS.

We are also keenly aware of the implications of enmasse CTAF(R)s and their direct correlation to the introduction of ADS-B in the future. RA-Aus understands the desire of the airlines to mandate radio at all PTO aerodromes, however we believe that normalising deviation from the ideals of NAS (US) is creating another unique Australian Airspace System problem that NAS was introduced to alleviate.

Phone: (02) 6280 4700 Fax: (02) 6280 4775 E-mail: admin@raa.asn.au

VISIT US AT WWW.RAA.ASN.AU

RA-Aus believes that the perceived safety benefit increase of mandating radio at a wide number of PTO aerodromes is unreliable at best and unless OAR is responsible in their duty of care and follow the required government protocols as per the AAPS and address this subject with a risk based/cost benefit analysis method, the impact will severely affect not only current operations but also future confidence in CASA’s ability to consult with industry.

RA-Aus strongly supports Dr. Bob Hall’s letter of the 22nd of February 2008 to you on the introduction of the new CTAF(R) aerodromes and further more RA-Aus will vigorously oppose any such endeavour to mandate restrictions on current freedoms where no safety case is first demonstrated.

RA-Aus remains committed to the consultation process however finds it difficult to justify expending considerable time and money on consultation with government bodies that wish to repeal strategic directions put in place by their predecessors in order to effect outcomes different to those already agreed in principle during the consultation process.

RA-Aus does not believe that OAR is fulfilling it’s obligation as the airspace regulator if it bypasses government protocols such as the AAPS in favour of more powerful vested interests at the expense of equitable airspace access for all users.

Regards

Lee Ungermann
CEO Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

Bruce Byron, CASA
Bob Hall, ASAC
Tim Blatch, AOPA

NATFLY 2008 - 25 Years

2008-03-07T14:07:00.001+10:00

Hi All,

Our national fly in is on again over Easter at Narromine (20 - 23 March.) This event is of special significance this year as it marks our 25 th year of existence. If you can attend, please do so.

If you are flying in please remember to read the AIP supplement about our event H12/08.

I have also had reports that the "Cat Head Burrs" are particularly bad this year. Please take precautions.

Safe Flying,

John

RA-Aus Board Meeting, February 2008

2008-02-27T19:09:00.002+10:00

The following items may be of interest.

1. RA-Aus Forum. It was decided that we would develop our own web forum. In this way we can better inform our members of developments in an appropriate and timely manner.

2. Our new Operations Manual is finalised and will be burned to a CD and sent out with the April edition of our magazine, and become effective at our Ops. Manager’s discretion. Probably on the first of May. For those who want a hard copy, this will be available from the office on a cost recovery basis. By sending the manual out on a CD with the magazine your association stands to save approx. $150,000. One significant change is increasing the cross country time from 5 to 10 hours. Those doing their cross country endorsement would be advised to hasten.

3. BFR’s There has been some confusion regarding BFR’s. I went through this with our Ops. Manager to clarify things.

1. A BFR is NOT a pass /fail test. It is a review.

2. A BFR is NOT a training flight. Hence it can be done in any aircraft.

3. The pilot being tested is regarded as the PIC, not the instructor.

4. The instructor does not need to be endorsed on the aircraft used.

5. The review should aim to be in the most flown aircraft, but advisory only.

4. CTAF-R. Air-services is aggressively pushing to make ALL licensed aerodromes a CTAF-R. We need to watch and fight this one.

5. 10,000 th. Member. We are getting very close to getting our 10,000 th. Member. As a comparison, I understand AOPA have about 3500 members, SAAA about 1500 members, and HGFA about 2500 members, mostly hang glider pilots.

6. Student Scholarship Program. We have started a student scholarship program. With the official launching next month.

7. Mobile Training School. Due to the serious problems caused by the trial Mobile Training School. No further mobile schools will be approved. However Satellite Schools will be approved on application and the meeting of set conditions.

8. Video of Forums. An attempt will be made to video instructor forums and technical forums at this years Natfly. These will be for sale after the event.

9. Club Insurance. It may not be wildly known but affiliated clubs are covered under the RA-Aus insurance policy for many club events. But not air shows.

John McKeown

Possible Glitch with LSA Aircraft

2007-12-07T17:17:00.003+10:00

Note from our Technical Manager.

If you are going to transfer from VH to LSA you must provide a copy of the revised Special Certificate of Airworthiness. The SCoA has to be re-issued by an Approved Person with 24-XXXX. An additional transfer cost to the owner.

Also please note that under the current CASA regulations, LSA aircraft cannot be used for Hire and Reward. A SCoA for aircraft being used for Hire will not be issued. The basis of the regulation wording states LSA aircraft can only be used for Private Ops, Flying Training and Glider Towing.

Chris Kiehn has emailed Bernie Hole from CASA for his understanding of this. This could be a serious blow for anyone wishing to make money with LSA aircraft..!

******* ********* ********

Update. Chris has received a response from Bernie.

"The information you require is contained in CAR 262 APA. The requirements are that production LSA aircraft can be used for Private operations Flying training Glider towing.

The aircraft can be hired out for any of these operations. In other words, if you owned an aircraft you could hire it out to a person for private operations etc.

Hope this helps

Regards

Bernie
"

Fire Safety and Composite Aircraft

2007-11-28T20:15:00.000+10:00

There has been a lot of press coverage lately about fire and composite aircraft. This has been about the new generation of passenger aircraft, but there are now a lot of composite recreational aircraft on our register, so this should be of interest to us.

The following is a link to an article by the ATSB on this matter, written in April 2006. (mouse click on ATSB)

John McK

Presidents Memo to RA-Aus members

2007-11-14T19:45:00.000+10:00

ADS-B: A Panacea and Gravy Train for Air Services Australia.

A Poison Pill for RA-Aus and all private aircraft owners.

Last week I attended the Safe Skies conference in Canberra. During one of the presentations by the CEO of Air Services Australia (ASA), I was absolutely shocked to see the following slide as part of his presentation which depicted RA-Aus aircraft as a current safety threat.

ADS-B: A Panacea and Gravy Train for Air Services Australia.

A Poison Pill for RA-Aus and all private aircraft owners.

( Mouse click on the above image to enlarge the photo)

ASA’s insinuations that Drifters (and by implication, RA-Aus aircraft) are unsafe is inflammatory and patently untrue. There have been no studies, no evidence produced to support the CEO’s suggestion. Air Services Australia is the same organisation that steadfastly refuses to implement the Transport Minister's “Ministerial Directive” that requires provision of radar in areas which Air Services claims to require Class C airspace, but have no radar - such as Coffs Harbour. ASA are content to ignore real SAFETY threats and endanger the lives of “fare paying passengers” by operating Control Zones without radar, and in the process disobeying a Ministerial directive; while fabricating non existent SAFETY problems of Drifters operating OUTSIDE control airspace in “G” or general use airspace, where they have been operating SAFELY for over 25 years.

I believe that the Minister should be taking ASA to task and insisting that ASA implement his directive. Where is accountability when a Ministerial directive can be ignored for over 3 years, endangering the lives of fare paying passengers? ASA is the same organisation that is now trying to ram ADS-B down the throats of private aircraft owners to cure a problem that doesn’t exist. What Air Services Australia is trying to do is shift the cost of new and replacement radars away from Air Services and on to all owners of aircraft under the guise of SAFETY in an effort to lessen their own financial responsibilities.

In the United States ADS-B is still in its infancy and the FAA has announced that due to technical and other reasons ADS-B will not be a requirement until 2020; and then for commercial aircraft only. For Australia to mandate a technical solution years before the US is inviting obsolescence and interoperability problems as well as additional future costs. Aircraft in the US will still be required to carry a transponder as the primary means of collision avoidance. Aircraft using only G or E airspace in the US will not be required to carry ADS-B. The US has significantly higher air traffic density and the fact that they are not contemplating ADS-B for class G or E airspace makes a mockery of ASA purported safety claim for the much lower density of traffic in Australian G and E airspace.

The fact is that forcing every aircraft in Australia to carry ADS-B would be a quick and easy solution for ASA requirements to replace their current ground-based radars. RA-Aus has no problem with ASA implementing ADS-B in higher level airspaces where it will be of most benefit to the airlines. Mandating ADS-B for use in both upper and lower airspace cannot be supported on either a safety or a cost benefit basis.

Air Services Australia is a government corporation providing ATC and Air Navigation services. It is expected to make a profit and pay a dividend to the Government. RA-Aus find it somewhat inappropriate that ASA is a member of the Aviation Policy Group (APG) a peak body formulating strategic aviation policy. Policy and profit motive do not make good bedfellows nor are they conducive in formulating impartial strategic policy that affects all Australian airspace users. Having ASA represented on the APG is a bit like having the fox in the henhouse. I believe that the Minister should review the makeup of the APG with a view to excluding ASA or alternatively having airspace users represented on the APG if ASA’s commercial interests are represented.

In last months magazine Lee gave an overview of what ADS-B was all about and the fact that there was a Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) put out by the APG on ADS-B. RA-Aus have submitted a response rejecting the paper and its proposals. A copy of our response is on our website.

It appears that ASA is ready to manufacture a bogus safety case on why G airspace should be reduced or why all RA-Aus aircraft should be fitted with an ADS-B. I ask that all members remain vigilant and be ready to lobby their local members of Parliament and write to the Minister asking that he curtail ASA’s arrogance and conceit. I’m sure our 8,200 flying members and some 4,000 aircraft owners would make an impact if they all wrote letters to the media and decision makers. In the meantime please do your own research into the issue so that you can respond to any nonsense claims of SAFETY issues surrounding ADS-B, airspace and CTAF( R) being made by ASA when trying to justify their own flawed agenda.

I would much rather be talking about fun things like the Evans Head Great Eastern Fly- In over the Christmas / New Year period. It promises to be a great time with many events planned over the four days. More details elsewhere in this magazine.

Christmas and the season of goodwill is almost with us. The office will be closed over the Christmas-New Year period so if you have any business that will need to be conducted over that period, plan on getting it done earlier.

On behalf of all the members I would like to pass on a vote of thanks to all our office staff who have all worked hard and efficiently in providing us with the services we need to keep us flying with a minimum of fuss. We wish them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year full of rewarding challenges.

To all our faithful members, your Board extends the compliments of the season with the fervent desire that you all have a Merry Christmas and a SAFE New Year.

John Gardon

RA-Aus President

ADS-B - Technical Article

2007-11-14T16:24:00.000+10:00

I have had a few people ask me more information on the technical side of ADS-B.

For those interested there is a very good Technical Article on ADS-B written some time ago by John Brandon. It is on the on the RA-Aus web site. Mouse click on "Technical Article" above to go straight to the site.

John McK

ADS-B, Presidents Memo to the Minister

2007-11-11T21:43:00.000+10:00

10 November 2007

Dear Minister,

I attended the Safeskies conference in Canberra last week. It was a very beneficial conference with the Safety Systems theme well received. The organisers and sponsors should be congratulated for an excellent event. We were all disappointed that you were unable to open the conference but understood the time pressures you are currently under.

During one of the presentations I was very disturbed at the direction that Air Services Australia were taking on the introduction of ADS-B, as well as the implied suggestion that private operations in class G airspace were a safety risk. With the establishment of the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) within CASA, I would have thought that Air Services comment was inappropriate and pre-emptive.

Attached is an article that will shortly be published in the RA-Aus magazine with a print run of some 13,000 copies for both members and newsstand distribution. I would appreciate it if you could read it and respond to the following specific issues raised:

1. Is the Minister happy with the current situation of Air Services ignoring a Ministerial Directive for over three years?

2. Is it appropriate for Air Services to be represented on the Aviation Policy Group, when their profit driven motives may not coalesce with the broader strategic needs of all aviation sectors?

3. Can you assure us that issues such as the implementation of ADS-B, reduction and regulation of G Airspace and increase in numbers of CTAF ( R ) will be subject to an aviation industry wide true consultation process?

4. Can you assure us that your Airspace Policy statements, and in particular, that class “G” airspace is be considered the default airspace and that the eventual aim is to adopt the unaltered US and ICAO NAS airspace model, are still the guidance for the OAR?

5. Can the Minister assure us that, if after full industry wide consultation, it is determined that fitment of ADS-B is to be mandated for class “E” and “G” airspace that:

(i) both ADS-B (in) and ADS-B (out) equipment will be provided free of charge and maintained by ASA for all private aircraft operators.

(ii) No charges will be ever be levied by ASA for private operations in “E” and “G” airspace as is currently the case.

We plan on releasing the article to all other aviation journals and magazines as well as the Australian newspaper in the near future. We would obviously like to convey factual material in those articles.

RA-Aus has prided itself on working with the regulator in a co-operative and consultative manner in forums such as CASA’s SCC process. As a result you have heard very little from us other than occasional courtesy visits. In this instance we believe that ASA is bypassing and rushing the normal consultative process. That they are doing this in an effort to achieve an outcome that would solve ASA’s financial predicament, by shifting cost burdens onto private aircraft owners. Therefore we feel that we had no other option but to approach you for clarification given the circumstances.

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to respond.

Regards,

John Gardon

Two Gyro Pilots Badly Burnt

2007-11-09T17:48:00.001+10:00

Two Gyroplane pilots, an instructor and a student pilot were badly burnt in a landing accident at Echuca late yesterday afternoon. The Gyro burst into flames on landing heavily. One of the pilots died of his burns to-day.

Although this is not under RA-Aus jurisdiction, it reminds me of a badly burnt pilot I wrote about in an earlier post. See Accident Lessons, Sep. 18. (just click here)

When you go flying please consider wearing non flammable or low flammable clothing, and have a way of getting out of your seat belts quickly.

ADS-B. - Know Your Enemy

2007-11-06T20:48:00.001+10:00

This is a slide put up by Greg Russell at the recent Safe Skies conference. November 1-2, 2007 in Canberra. (Mouse click on photo to enlarge image)

He cites this Drifter, most probably legally flying in class G airspace, as an example of the type of aircraft that poses a real danger to aviation, and the reason for ADS-B

Greg Russell is the CEO of Air Services Australia. He is pushing this ADS-B business real hard. Why I wonder? Particularly in light of the conclusions the FAA in the US have come to, which are opposite to ASA views.

Greg Russell and ASA are pushing very hard to sell ADS-B as the be all and end all panacea for aviation safety, completely disregarding the US experience and intent. When the arguments they put up for safety make no sense you have to ask WHY. The Latin term 'Que Bono" comes to my mind. Que Bono - Who benefits? Certainly not the vast majority of recreation aviators in Australia.

His safety arguments are nonsense. Read the RA-Aus submission below.

I personally have no issue with ADS-B in controlled airspace or above 10,000 feet where commercial and RPT operate.

I also believe there are some regulations you may not like, and some, perhaps, are not worth fighting. In these cases you grin and bear it.

However this is a very serious battle we MUST win. Not just for us now, but for all our future members.

Our Association is very fortunate at this time, as we have a President and CEO who are willing to go out and fight for what they believe is in the best interest of our members. They are against the ADS-B proposal in its current form and are prepared to do something about it, while some others in our association are content to sit on their hands, and even be appeasers.

Others in our association may have different views to me on this matter, and that is good. It is very healthy to have different views and opinions. It is not healthy to have fence sitters and appeasers. If you feel strongly about this matter, one way or the other, do something about it. Don't just sit on the fence. Ask your local board member what his or her views and actions are. If you don't like the answer, tell them so, and consider how you vote at the next RA-Aus Board election. (This goes for me too. If you think I am too unyielding on this matter, vote me off)

John McK

ADS-B. RA-Aus Official Response

2007-10-31T17:01:00.001+10:00

RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA

RESPONSE to the

Joint Consultation Paper

Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance.

October 2007.

Executive Summary.

Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus) believes that the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) proposal has been formulated to justify extended surveillance of aircraft without verifiable and quantifiable safety related evidence and that the proposal is based solely on the economic benefits to Air Services Australia (ASA) and Regular Public Transport (RPT) Operators. Veiled threats of withdrawal of inducements and cross industry funding if a sector delays or does not accept the JCP recommendation does not engender a sense of consultation, but rather one of bribery and coercion.

The JCP justification that the economic benefits for ASA and claimed increases in RPT efficiency are justification enough to allow adverse economic impact, as well as adverse safety outcomes, for all other private airspace users is not supported. We also contend that the Cost Benefit Analysis provided is not rigorous or based on accurate current data, nor are the assumptions made accurate, in respect to the majority of the private aircraft fleet, and in particular the Recreational Aircraft fleet.

RA-Aus has a long standing board policy to oppose any mandatory introduction of ADS-B for aircraft operating in CTAF ( R ), class G or E airspace in line with accepted practice in the US NAS airspace, unless there is a clear-cut unequivocal safety case that concludes that the US and ICAO in their collective wisdom have it wrong. The JCP falls short of providing a compelling safety case to justify the introduction of ADS-B (LAP).

RA-Aus is unable to accept the proposal in its current form nor the suggested timing of the mandatory introduction of ADS-B (LAP).

RA-Aus Response to JCP Key Change Proposals

Proposed timing of transition to satellite technology for navigation and surveillance.

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

Requirements for carriage and use of ADS-B avionics from mid 2012

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

Requirements for carriage and use of ADS-B avionic from mid 2014

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

Use of funds that would otherwise be spent on navaids and enroute radars to provide cross industry funding for fitment of ADS-B and GNSS avionics in aircraft less than 5,700kg

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

RA-Aus Position

The JCP and supporting documentation Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) have been examined by RA-Aus in preparation for our response. The CBA paints a rather rosy picture of the benefits for ASA while disregarding the true negative economic impacts on Australian Aviation if ADS-B were to be mandated for the whole of the Australian private fleet. We are deeply concerned at the attempt to oversell the benefits of navigation with the added impost of surveillance and thereby justifying both under the CBA by stealth. Statements such as: “Improved operational efficiency for RPT operations….greater availability of optimal flight levels…. due to accurate aircraft position information for ATC and pilots” benefits that are currently available from Ground Based Radars (GBR) and transponders. It appears that ASA chooses not to invest in their business and wish to shift the investment burden on to all airspace users. RA-Aus have no objection to the implementation of ADS-B (UAP) in class A airspace where the majority of the so called benefits of optimal Flight Levels accrue.

The CBA draws comparisons from non-comparable ATM systems to Australia’s primarily Class G nature and we also note that both the JCP and the CBA consistently refer to the benefits of safety by combining ADS-B (Out and In) in every context when ADS-B (Out) is only being subsidised which offers no protection to the majority of lower airspace users such as Recreational/GA pilot unless fitted with ADS-B (In). Therefore any claims of a safety based case arguments for the GA/Recreational fleet in the JCP/CBA are disingenuous at best.

If implemented, the JCP proposals would force higher cost impost on a sector of the industry that can least afford it. Unilateral mandating of ADS-B could have the effect of encouraging a new and adverse underground culture. Higher entry and operating costs (new aircraft fitment and ongoing maintenance) will have an adverse effect on the growth of recreational/GA operations. ADS-B will effectively create a controlled Class ‘G ‘contrary to a previous Ministerial Airspace Policy Statement stipulating ‘G’ as the default airspace.

The JCP canvassed option of cost free ADS-B fitment, without allowing for costs involved in ongoing maintenance support, will not encourage new aircraft ownership and will stifle growth rates in all sectors of aviation. Contradictory comments on the life of ADS-B units ranging from 15 to 25 years do little to engender confidence in the data presented.

No guarantees have been given that once ADS-B is mandated in class G airspace it will not be used as a vehicle to expand ASA airways charges or unnecessarily restrict operations.

The JCP data and assumptions are not based on facts. Current data out of the US (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 8^th Oct 2007 Pg 40) claims that costs for GA aircraft could be as high as US$17,000.00 and cites avionics capacity constraints as one of the major limiting factors. It is a well known fact that the Australia suffers a major shortage of avionics LAMES. Indicative costing presented in the JCP are far of the mark and would increase dramatically due to supply and demand pressures if mandatory fitment were to be introduced. In any case, the FAA is only proposing fitment to commercial aircraft and not until 2020.

For most Recreational and GA pilots, ADS-B (Out) only, offers no foreseeable safety benefit in the mandatory fitment to a radio equipped aircraft. Even if ADS-B (In) is provided it could lead to an over reliance on this new technology and has the potential to generate a culture of ‘video screen VFR’ which will in turn create the very same accident that it was installed to prevent.

We note with interest that the military have withdrawn from being compliant within the proposed ASA time frame and have set their target for 2020 in line with the US. It would be farcical to insist that the civilian fleet have mandated fitment without including the military fleet.

Apparently ASA have already reached the foregone conclusion that they will introduce ADS-B regardless of the wishes of the majority of aircraft owners in Australia. ASA’s blatant disregard for ministerial directive “Air Services Act 1995 Section 16 Direction No.4 of 2004” would seem to be the motivating factor for attempting to force ADS-B on the private aviation sector in Australia, when in the US ADS-B will only be mandated for Commercial aircraft, operating in upper airspaces. Statements in the JCP alluding to the fact that ADS-B training and education packages are already being prepared makes a mockery of the consultation process.

JCP/CBA Shortcomings

What little safety justification is presented in the JCP/CBA draws a very long bow. It assumes that VFR CFIT accidents will be reduced. Any seasoned pilot would agree that the way of reducing VFR CFIT accidents would not be by focussing attention inside the cockpit at the expense of external visual cues.

Claims of efficient preservation of life through using ADS-B for accident location overlooks an already introduced mandate for the introduction of 406MHz GPS locator beacon by Feb 2009, and already deployed by a growing number of Recreational and GA pilots, at far lower cost than ADS-B. Many such leaps of deductive reasoning are evident in the paper and applied to excess; including that VFR flights into IFR conditions will be mitigated by ADS-B. In fact this technology may well encourage scud running and inadvertent entry into non VFR conditions.

Mid air collisions research demonstrates that risk increases with proximity to an airfield. ADS-B OUT does not mitigate this risk, only “see and avoid” is the most efficient method as even TCAS is unreliable in close proximity to circuit traffic. In the case of CTAFs the heightened sense of false confidence in technology, both radio and ADS-B is, in itself posing more risk than it does a mitigator. A non-radio equipped aircraft is virtually invisible in this sense, to others not practised in “see and avoid” principles.

The JCP claim that ADS-B will reduce Violations of Controlled Airspace (VCA) is also a rather large deductive leap as most VCA’s occur from penetration from Class G where there is no requirement below 5000’ to carry a radio or ADS-B (Out).

RA-Aus formally reject the figures quoted in the CBA with respect to non-VH registered aircraft in Table 4-6: Entire fleet numbers. Not only are these figures incomplete by not including the Hang Gliding Federation of Australia’s currently registered aircraft, but also age of the data is of great concern. Whilst it is true that most of the ‘traditional’ Australian registered aircraft numbers remain fairly constant, the same can not be said for the Non-VH registered area. This demonstrates the questionable integrity of the JCP/CBA data presented. Actual RA-Aus data since 2002 has documented an actual growth rate in excess of 10% per year to date, in the number of RA-Aus registered aircraft. RA-Aus Aircraft registrations, have recorded a 16% increase in CY 2006. For these reasons alone, we believe that the CBA analysis and integrity of the document is flawed, assuming only an arbitrary growth rate of 4% a year.

RA-Aus current projections using a conservative figure of 13% growth rate in aircraft registrations (not taking into consideration the current exponential swing) has projected aircraft numbers at 4706 for CY 2012 and the CY 2014 aircraft registrations are projected at 6009. The CBA cost analysis has been formulated on incorrect data and has also failed to correctly assess projected growth rates. Nor do the CBA figures take into account Hang Gliding Federation current and projected figures, further skewing the analysis towards the wrong side of the balance sheet.

Security and Boarder Protection

Linking ADS-B to National security has no real value unless tracking compliant aircraft. Only primary radar will identify a non-compliant or hostile aircraft. In the US the Department of Transportation's Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III told Congress “that ADS-B had Potential Security Vulnerabilities, because ADS-B makes the position of aircraft in flight generally available, some are concerned about the possibility of introducing false targets into the system”. He also went on to say “A security assessment is needed to determine ADS-B risks and appropriate countermeasures. The FAA needs to continue to work with the intelligence community and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to ensure that concerns about ADS-B security are adequately addressed”. Therefore any claim that ADS-B has benefits for National security is premature. In fact, ADS-B has some potentially damaging vulnerabilities and shortcomings that could work against National Security.

Conclusion

The JCP has made a compelling case for the introduction of ADS-B based solely on the economic benefit of introduction for Air Services Australia (ASA). Introduction of ADS-B would relieve the economic burden for ASA of replacing existing ground based radars and shift the burden on an aviation sector already reeling from high costs and least equipped to absorb further cost imposts. The JCP has failed to make a clear cut safety based case for the introduction of ADS-B (LAP).

In the USA, the FAA is proposing fitment of ADS-B to commercial aircraft only, and in any case will not be mandatory until 2020. The FAA acknowledges that there are still major risks that will have a direct bearing on the cost, schedule, and expected benefits of ADS-B and has called for further consultation and studies.

The timelines and scope of the ADS-B (LAP) introduction in Australia as proposed in the JCP are patently not required for any other reason than to relieve ASA from a Ministerial directive they have failed to implement. The proposals and timelines outlined in the JCP are unrealistic, unachievable and an unnecessary economic burden on private aircraft owners with no apparent safety benefit.

Rotax Engines

2007-10-30T21:30:00.000+10:00

This is an interesting site about Rotax Engines. If you want to read the articles just click on the subject title below.

Reading Pistons

Reading Spark Plugs

Bing Carburettors

Choosing Two Stroke Oils

Human Factors Training

2007-10-28T20:48:00.000+10:00

Human Factors Training

Our new Operations Manual has been with CASA for some time, (well before I was elected to the board) and was promised to be approved before this Christmas. However I see this as a remote possibility due to the election. (Update 30/10/07 - I may have been somewhat premature with the last statement. Watch this space )

Probability the biggest impact on current licensed members will be the need for everyone of us to undertake a course in Human Factors. At this stage it appears we will be given two years to undertake this course and there is a possibility that it can be done by "self study". I haven't seen the course but I don't think it will be much of a burden to us, and may be a big help to our decision making.

RA-Aus Magazine

2007-10-28T19:46:00.000+10:00

I have been getting a number of complaints about our magazine. The main issues are Lateness, and that some members see the magazine in the newsagent before they get their posted copy.

Most members would not be aware that we no longer edit our magazine. The RA-Aus has contracted out the magazine to Zebra Publishing. We pay them a fee to edit print and publish our magazine.

I have brought the complaints I have received to the attention of the other Board Members and the Executive. My personal view is our members MUST receive their mailed copy before the general public can purchase a copy in a newsagent. Even if this means delaying the distribution to the newsagents. I have presented this view to the full Board and Executive.

I have also presented the view that we need to find out why the magazine is so often late, and take steps to fix the problem.

Recreational Flying Forum

2007-10-14T06:44:00.000+10:00

On the side bar you will see a link to an aviation forum called Recreational Flying Forum. This is a private forum run by a gentleman named Ian Baker. It has no formal association with the governing body of recreational flying, the RA-Aus.

I have not met Ian however I personally find this an excellent forum for all recreational pilots. I am a member of this site (JohnMcK) and I support this site from a personal perspective and a board member perspective. The site is well moderated and friendly. You just have a look at some of the other aviation forums to see the viscous nature and tone of some anonymous posters to see what can happen without good moderation.

There has been an issue earlier this year where the RA-Aus suddenly refused to accept Ian's advertisements in our magazine. This was before my election to the board, and I have not been able to fully find out why. But times have changed and this is no longer an issue.

Ian also runs an online shop where recreational aviators have access to a range of aviation goods at competitive prices. I personally haven't bought anything there yet so I can't comment on the service, but if Ian runs the shop as he runs the forum, I don't think there will be any issues.

Apart from club meetings and flyins, forums such as this are a great way for recreational aviators to communicate. However for the newer pilots, don't just read the one post on a topic. I have seen examples of wrong information being given, and advice given "as gospel" that later turns out to be given by a student pilot. However the big advantage of a forum such as this, is it generally doesn't take long for someone to post the correct information.

More on ADSB

2007-10-09T21:35:00.000+10:00

This is a copy of a post I made on the Recreational Flying Forum.

Hi Ian,

I personally have no issue, and my understanding is, neither does the RA-Aus for ASDB to be fitted for entry into controlled airspace. My main concern is for the grass roots members of the RA-Aus. The ultralight people. We have become a major growth association, (while most others are shrinking) by looking after our members, and having a policy of "affordable flying". "Safety with responsibility". Just look at what has happened to GA in the past few years. Now ask yourself why?

If we agree to this being compulsory outside CTA we are selling out not only the vast majority of our current members but also the vast majority of our future members. How are all our "Rag and Tube" members going to cope with this?. How are all the HGFA trike pilots going to cope with this, or all the roatacraft people? I will tell you how. They will be back in open paddocks like the early years. (and there are those who would prefer this to happen)

There is an old Latin saying "Cue Bono" It means "who benefits". We should all ask ourselves Who benefits from all this business. First, only the out link will be compulsory, who will benefit from this? Certainly not any recreation aviator. Where is the safety benefit in this if none of us has a down or in link? There isn't any. If there was a real concern about safety outside CTR the Government, instead of giving a $10,000 one off voucher for the up link only they could subsidize ALL aircraft in Australia (RPT included) with something like the current "Flarm" unit fitted to gliders. This is a very small box, draws next to no current, and costs about $600. This unit has in and out link, audio and visual collision avoidance, data logging, and output plotting for those with LCD screens. You can also have obstacle (power lines) and terrain (high ground) database alarms added. All this is available NOW for $600. (perhaps much cheaper if mass produced)

No I think we need to look further. Lets look at this from a "cue bono" aspect. - Who does really benefit. I have a few personal ideas. Perhaps some of you do also.

John McK

PS. In the interests of full disclosure. I have a Flarm unit fitted in my Drifter as I fly from a mixed ultralight and glider airfield. I have absolutely no connection with the manufacturer or sale of these units.

ADSB

2007-10-07T20:45:00.000+10:00

ADS-B

Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast

Airservices/CASA are pushing ahead with ADS-B (a type of upmarket version of Flarm used by gliders and some ultralights at mixed airfields) This, in its current form, I believe, will be VERY BAD news for us. By 2012 all aircraft entering CTA will be required to have ADS-B fitted, and by 2014 all aircraft in CTAF(R) will require ADS-B. View link

CASA policy is to make all aerodromes that have a visit from one or more 10 seat aircraft per month a CTAF(R). So starting 2014 if you want to go into or through a CTAF(R) you must have ADS-B, and by then most of the airfields we currently fly at or near or through will be CTAF(R)

The “estimated” cost of these units is $10,000 to $15,000 plus instillation?. They can only be repaired by a CASA approved Radio Tec. They will also need to be serviced every two years by an approved Tec. Most of us can’t fly our aircraft into Brisbane or some other major center for a service, So if you can’t put your plane on a trailer, think of what the call out fee might be.

There are suggestions that the government may cover the costs for the initial instillation for currently registered aircraft but not for any new aircraft in the future. But even if we get a “free” unit, the upkeep could "bankrupt" many of us. We will also sell out all our future members of RA-Aus, or if you belong to AOPA, SAAA etc, your future members, if we accept this in its current form. Also no one seems to know how big or how heavy these aviation units are or what their power consumption will be. There will be exemptions for aircraft with low battery capacity or no alternator etc, plus other undefined aviation uses. You could have airspace full of, say, gliders, hang gliders, paragliders etc but banned to ultralights. If so what is the point of having them compulsory outside of CTR.

Also, as I read the new regulations, If you don't have ADSB you won't be able to fly above 5,000 ft (QNH) regardless of the terrain.

My personal view is we need to lobby to at least stop them from being compulsory in CTAF(R), and below 10,000 ft.

In the marine field this system is called AIS (no height requirement) and has been in operation for some time, and I guess is where the Aviation idea came from. This is now mandated for commercial shipping but you can buy pleasure craft versions of AIS for under $1000 which use is voluntary. Also non AIS equipped pleasure craft are not excluded from shipping lanes where AIS is compulsory for commercial shipping. Eg The narrow shipping lane up Cape York Peninsular.

Also if any of you people out there have a "thing" about your personal privacy in sporting or pleasure pursuits, be advised that every single move you make in your aircraft fitted with ADSB, from key on to key off, will be tracked and logged by the government agencies. (track, height, time, bearing, landings etc). If your IQ is greater than 10 you can work out future possible ramifications of this.

The military have rejected their compulsory instillation for now. My personal view is we should do the same under the current proposals.

How to respond

Please forward your response to DOTARS by 31 October 2007 by one of the following means:

Fax Attn: ADS-B Proposal (02) 6274 7804
Post ADS-B Proposal, Office of Airspace Management,
Department of Transport and Regional Services
GPO Box 594
Canberra ACT 2601
Email ADSB@dotars.gov.au

We, as Recreational Aviators must be very proactive on this matter. RESPOND NOW.

John McK (wearing my personal and RA-Rus Board hat on this one)

CASA Requests our Views and Issues for the Future

2007-10-05T14:43:00.001+10:00

Our CEO has received a memo from the head of CASA asking us to put forward our ideas for the future of aviation (all aviation) in Australia. He also asked us to list any problems or issues that we foresee in Recreational Aviation in Australia in the medium to long term future.

I have some of my own views relating to Recreational Aviation but I need your input to get your views. You people out there are our association and it is your views that need to be heard.

I need to send in a reply to our CEO in two weeks. So please give me your thoughts and ideas before the 19 th October 2007. "Email me johnmck@gil.com.au" or mob. 0438728311

Thank you

John McK

BFR's

2007-10-01T16:34:00.000+10:00

This past weekend my local flying club held a Fly-in breakfast, and knowing I was their new board member hit me up with a number of issues (as they should) One real problem area that I personally didn’t realise was such an issue is our BFR’s

I will bring this up at Board Level but I need to get more feedback on the issues you face. Please email me (johnmck@gil.com.au) with your concerns. The more feedback you give me the more I can argue on your behalf.

First to the BFR itself. By definition, a BFR is just what it says. A Biennial Flight Review. It is a review of our flying. It is not a pass-fail test. Its purpose it to identify and correct any bad habits or problems in our flying.

Now come the issues. These are as I see them at present, and it is here I need your feedback.

1. Single Seaters. The regulations state the test should be in the aircraft you fly the most. Several people stated they only fly single seaters and Instructors won’t review their flying from the ground.

When this is the case these pilots are told they must do their BFR in the school’s aircraft. These pilots say they feel very uncomfortable doing a “test” in an unfamiliar plane. I need more of your views on this.

2. Instructor Skills. Some pilots with “different” 2 seat aircraft claim any BFR to them is worthless as the local Instructor has never flown their type of aircraft and would have no idea of what is going on. This applies to a Rag and Tube pilot asking an instructor who has only flown hi performance aircraft to do a BFR in the back of his Drifter to a Rag and Tube Instructor doing a BFR for a Sting pilot. I agree with them on this and some solution needs to be found.

3. Insurance Issues. Some pilots want a BFR in their type of aircraft, but not in their aircraft as they carry no crew insurance and don’t know the consequences of an accident. They also ask what are the consequences of an Instructor “taking over”. I don’t know this myself but will ask.

4. Under CASA GA rules a type endorsement also rates as a BFR. This needs to be clarified under our rules. Eg. Does a tail-wheel endorsement or a check flight (endorsement) on say a Tecnam rate as a BFR?

5. Dual certificates. For our GA and RA-Aus pilots does a GA BFR also rate as a RA-Aus BFR.? If not why not. The argument here is it is a flight review of a higher level so should flow down. There has been no suggestion to me (yet) that a BFR should flow up the other way.

As I said in the beginning I was unaware of the depth of feeling on this matter, but being a rag and tube pilot myself, I can see I would be very uneasy if I had to travel to another airport to do a BFR in a plane I had never even sat in before with an instructor I didn’t know. Please give me feedback and I will bring it up with the Board.

John McKeown

Low Flying Privilages

2007-09-24T10:59:00.000+10:00

There has been a lot talk around lately about us losing low flying privileges under Part 103 and 149. In these instances it is best to go straight to the top. In this case I wrote to Mick Poole our operations Manager. Mick's reply to my query follows.

“Hi John,

The new part 103 and 149 are actually a lot better for us then people think. Yes if you read the new 103 and its content on low flying it appears that we will not be able to have the freedoms that we do now in some respects. But, what part 103 and 149 do is empowering our operations manual. In our new ops manual (as per the board web site for those who would like to read it) actually has the new endorsement on Low flying. This has been on the drawing boards for quite a while. As you know we have been able to fly low with the land owner’s permission etc, but what we have not provided in the past is the training for low level flying. As you would be well aware there are a lot of things that are out to get you when you go low flying, power lines, wind shear, mechanical turbulence, depth perception and it goes on and on. We have been working on the low level endorsement to at least give the people who want to and are low flying, some of the necessary skills and knowledge that will maybe save their life one day.

Believe me, we by no means want to take anything away from our members, what we want to be able to do is give them more. Part 103 and 149 will go a long way in enabling us to do this. More importantly the new operations manual is with CASA at present as you know. The new endorsements that we are introducing with this, (are)controlled airspace, in flight adjustable propeller, retractable, etc etc. These and other endorsements are being introduced primarily for the safety of our members. As our aeroplanes become more and more complicated and faster, we need to be able to, and in fact need to be seen, to be providing the necessary training to go with them.

I want to be able to go to sleep at night knowing that we have, or are, providing all the necessary tools for our Schools, instructors and most importantly our members. These tools enabling them to be able to continue to fly with the freedoms we have today well into the foreseeable future, but also to make it as safe as possible to maintain these freedoms.

Mick Poole “

Airport Dreams

2007-09-21T09:16:00.000+10:00

Following is a memo I sent to the RA-Aus Board. This is for Board consideration. But YOU, our members are the association. Without you we amount to nothing. We, the board members, act on your behalf. But we also must have your support. As your board member I need to hear your views. If you think we need our own airfields let your board members know. If not, also let us know and reasons if possible.

My memo to the Board

In my view, one common failure of the leadership of bodies like ours, and not just ours, but clubs and even governments is they think short term. One year, maybe even five years. I believe we should be thinking out at least 50 years.

We won’t be around then but we must set in motion long term goals and ideas that can be acted on or modified by those who follow us. Perhaps very few of our ideas or dreams will ever come to fruition. But if we don’t have any, NONE will come to fruition.

Airfields are a big issue for us. If we don’t have an airfield we can’t fly our types of planes, and perhaps should consider paragliding. I see a number of ways we could secure airfields.

1. We could look at securing existing council airfields where the local council wants to rid themselves of this “burden”. As a non profit body we could take over the airfield much easier than an entrepreneur could. This could be done as an outright purchase or on a long term 99 year lease.

We could supply and rent hanger space, or lease land for private hangers to cover our costs and pay any loan charges. We could lock this airfield up as an aviation site for at least 100 years.

One urgent airfield that I know needs action now is Teewah near Noosa. Another possibility is my home airfield of Boonah. A third would be Evans Head and a fourth Gympie. I am sure all of you are aware of similar fields.

2. We secure vacant land in areas of need and develop our own “Airparks”. These could be 30 to 60 minutes out in the bush as I believe most Pilots would be happy to drive that far into town if they lived on site. Or the “Townies” would drive that far out to an airport. Obviously the distance would be further out for sites close to major centres (one hour), and closer in to minor centres (15 to 30 minutes).

At “our airfields” we set up “cheap fuel” and food outlets to encourage visitors. We could have our own plane and vehicle roadhouse if we are close to a major road. We could set up low cost camping areas, not only for visiting pilots but an encouragement for the retired “Grey Nomads” to visit on their travels. This way we start to get “critical mass” for our services.

I believe we would have a better chance of local support being a non profit Aviation Body rather than a “greedy” development company. In time (50 years thing) we might be in a position to buy the Archerfield’s or Bankstown’s of the future and save them for aviation at breakeven costs.

But we can start small NOW. We have a lot of members which gives a lot of political support. If we asked these members for a non interest loan of, say $200, we would instantly have a fighting fund $1M to $2M. More if we get higher loans or donations. We could have “set in stone” policy that would require a future Board to have a 75% member vote to change this policy. (eg to sell an airport)

“Our Airparks” could be a breeding ground for future pilots. There are a lot of grandparents amongst us and having the grandkids over for stays at an aviation venue might install in some of them the aviation spark.

All this might be a dream at the moment but it is an achievable dream. Without a dream we achieve nothing.

John McKeown

Rotax production ends for the 447 and the 503

2007-09-19T18:42:00.000+10:00

It looks like the rumours we heard at Avalon, but denied at Narromine are true. The latest issue of Microlight Flying magazine in the UK has informed its readers about the ceasing of production of the Rotax 447 and 503 engines due to the plunging sales of these engines. The 582 will be the only 2 stroke motor Rotax will continue to make.

The Rotax 447 will cease production at the end of 2007 and the 503 at the end of 2008. Spares for both these engines will continue to be available for a further 10 years.

John McKeown

September 2007 Board Meeting

2007-09-18T21:02:00.000+10:00

I attended my first RA-Aus board meeting on 14-16 September in Canberra. John Gardon was elected the new President, Myles Breitkreutz stayed on as Secretary and David Caban was elected Treasurer. Following are some items that may be of interest.

It was agreed all Board discussions except those “In Camera” or sensitive financial dealings with third party organisations would be available to the general membership.

I expressed concern at both the wording of changes to the Constitution and the vote itself. I stated (in my view) the vote was poorly handled in that there was no mention in the magazine that a vote was to be taken at the AGM, and no ballot papers were included in the magazine for the general membership. Changes to the constitution were passed with only 17 votes for and 1 against.

Lee Ungermann was confirmed as our new Executive Director, and Mick Poole was promoted to Operations Manager

The contract with Zebra publishing was renewed for another three years and there was discussion on how to keep improving the magazine.

Mick Poole showed draft copies of new aircraft and engine logbooks. They will not be compulsory for the general membership. Mick discussed the reason for the separate book for engines as some engines are moved from plane to plane and you can’t keep track of where they are or their status. I mentioned the same should apply to trike wings as some trike pilots have two or more wings.

A motion was passed that in future All Board candidate profiles will be published even if they are the only candidate, and all candidates must list their position on the executive of other aviation related bodies.

There was a motion passed to divide Queensland into three areas, Southern, Central, and Northern. Legal advice is to be taken if this can be done without changes to the Constitution. The total number of board members will remain the same.

There was discussion about Rego labels similar to motor cars. This was held over to a future date.

Rod Stiff was inducted as an RA-Aus Pioneer

There was discussion about having a Member Forum on our web site and how and where we could get staff to moderate this Forum.

We will now have new plastic Pilot Certificate cards instead official certificate cards.

There was discussion about our long term future and the possibility of our own airfield in the future.

John McKeown

Accident Lessons

2007-09-18T12:41:00.000+10:00

I recently attended an RA-Aus accident course in Canberra and I would like to list some comments and perhaps some lessons some of us could learn.

Fire. One of our worst nightmares. We studied an accident with an in-flight engine fire where the pilot managed to “crash” land the aircraft. Exit the inverted aircraft and die of burns and exposure many hours later. There are a few lessons here if we look for them.

1. The engine fire was caused by a fuel pump with excessive pressure flooding the carburettor and dripping onto the exhaust manifold. What is sad is after this crash it came to light that there were previous minor instances of similar engine fires of the same engine configuration that were not reported to Canberra. If reported could it have prevented this tragic death?

How many of us look at our engines and consider what would happen if we had a fuel leak? Will we have petrol dripping onto a hot exhaust? Do we have an effective fuel shut off valve? Do we have an effective firewall? Do we have an effective fire extinguisher close at hand?

2. The pilot landed the plane in a small clearing but it flipped on its back. How many of us consider getting out of an inverted aircraft, let alone one on fire?

Will your seat belt buckle release with a load on it? Mine won’t, and I bet most of the car seat belt types won’t either. Try it and see what I mean. (Don’t turn your plane over. Pull real hard on the belt to simulate an 80kg or 100kg load and press the button). If the buckle is hard to release do we have a knife handy to cut the webbing?

3. There was evidence of pilot difficulty in exiting the enclosed cockpit. How many of us consider getting out of our aircraft if the doors jam, or we are inverted? Could we break a canopy or windscreen with our head or hands?

4. This pilot, with a lot of difficulty, managed to exit the burning aircraft with his clothes on fire. He was wearing flammable synthetic clothing. Investigators could follow the pilot’s movements by following the tracks of molten clothes remanets and burnt flesh lying on the ground.

Do we as pilots always wear non flammable clothing when we fly? Not just in recreational aircraft but also in commercial aircraft? Proper clothing would have gone a long way to help this pilot.

5. This pilot managed to douse the flames by rolling in a bush but was left badly burned with only a belt and boots left. All clothing was burnt or melted. The accident happened early in the morning not long after the flight started. He would not be missed until late in the day. No one knew he had crashed. No one would know he was seriously injured. The pilot carried an ELB but it was in the burning plane.

Would this pilot have stood a better chance if he had a mobile phone and an ELB on his belt or in his pocket? (In non flammable clothing)

6. This accident happened (from memory) at around 8am on one day and the search started late that day. It was suspended at nightfall and the pilot’s body was found about 4pm on the next day. There was evidence that pilot lived for a long time. Investigators could see depression and scuff marks where the pilot sought refuge from the hot sun under the unburned tailplane, and constantly moved position to keep in the shade as the sun moved.

Would rescue have come quicker if someone knew the pilots course and expected arrival time? Would the pilot still have lived if the search was continued at night and the pilot had a torch in his pocket?

My heart goes out to this man. We have a pilot who lived through an in-flight fire struggling to survive with serious burns, with no clothes and no water, who continually dragged himself around in the dirt under the tailplane to stay in the shade all the while hoping and praying? for rescue that would never come.

There are many lessons here for those of us who want to look for them.

John McKeown

Intro to John

2007-09-18T09:20:00.001+10:00

My name is John McKeown and I have recently been elected as one of three Board Members for South Queensland for RA-Aus. This blog is an attempt to keep members a little better informed of relevant Recreational Aviation matters.

My Contact details are -

Email - johnmck(at)gil(dot)com(dot)au
Mobile - 0438 728311
Ph - 07 38161996 (home)

Rag and Tube Aviator

February RA-Aus Board Meeting

Excessive Secrecy

Proposed change to the Constitution - Another opinion

Proposed Change to Constitution

Vigilance

Duct Tape

RA-Aus AGM

New Executive Director / CEO for RA-Aus

Staff Salaries

RA-Aus AGM 2009

Treasurer's Report 2009

Gympie Aero Club Invitation

19 Cat. Aircraft and Built up Areas

ELB Compulsory Requirement

Serious NTSB report on Zodiac CH-601XL

Famous Trumpet Player gets Drifter Training

Disgraceful Reporting

Short Term Win on ADS-B

Justification For Change

Proposed New Radio Procedures

AMBERLEY AIRSHOW

News Update

Project OS 08/13Early implementation of certain proposed CASR Part 103 standards via CAO

More on ADSB

OPS. MANUAL UPDATE

Cold Morning Starts

Section I: Equipment and Environment

Part IV, Chapter 12: Preheating Equipment and Methods

Amberley Airshow 4/5 October 2008

Don't Forget Heck Field this Weekend

Ops. Manual Update

By The Numbers

Rotax Flickering Oil Pressure

RA-Aus Official Response to CTAF (R) Establishment

NATFLY 2008 - 25 Years

RA-Aus Board Meeting, February 2008

Possible Glitch with LSA Aircraft

Fire Safety and Composite Aircraft

Presidents Memo to RA-Aus members

ADS-B - Technical Article

ADS-B, Presidents Memo to the Minister

Two Gyro Pilots Badly Burnt

ADS-B. - Know Your Enemy

ADS-B. RA-Aus Official Response

Rotax Engines

Human Factors Training

RA-Aus Magazine

Recreational Flying Forum

More on ADSB

ADSB

CASA Requests our Views and Issues for the Future

BFR's

Low Flying Privilages

Airport Dreams

Rotax production ends for the 447 and the 503

September 2007 Board Meeting

Accident Lessons

Intro to John

Project OS 08/13
Early implementation of certain proposed CASR Part 103 standards via CAO