Australian Warbirds

[Buck Rogers]

What a discraceful act of self importance by displaying dirty lanudry to the aviation community. Not to mention the $50000 bill the Warbird Members will have to pay ! ...for what....Nothing.

[Kharon]

Sunny, what T28D said, in spades. Mind you, this topic is a minefield leftover from an older more dangerous battle. Both tribes have long memories and now, at the phoney war stage the pony pooh parcels are distractions. There may well be some who would like to see the discussion here closed and it's best to ignore the more obvious attempts. Goes back a long way to the infamous 'Liability wars', strictly speaking those battles have no place in this dust up; but boys will be boys.

There is trouble at mill; there are two opposing camps, each believing they are correct. If we can persuade the kiddies to play nice, a resolution will be achieved. It may not suit all but, it will be a legal democratic decision. It would be a shame to see the hard fought for independence lost and more restrictions placed on a small group without solid proof that the restrictions were necessary. Any other motive would be perdition.

[LeadSled]

Buck,
If the President of AWAL had not been denied the right to communicate with his members, this would not be public.

If a majority of the board of AWAL had complied with the Corporations Act 2001, there would have been no legal bill.

So, who do you think is responsible for this mess, which should never have happened.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

If the content of Mr Rolph-Smith's correspondence is accurate, a number of Board members of AWAL have in my view behaved, at best, incompetently, and should do the right thing and stump up for the funds wasted on this stupidity.

[Buck Rogers]

Creampuff I agree with you, but a simple call to Mick English in CASA will squash the misleading statements about Part 132, this would also have saved our small membership 50 Grand.. and the embarisment.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CASR PART132 Limited Catagory

[Frank Arouet]

Buck. Do you spell it like that;

AWAL is a self administrating Enterprise who's jurisdiction is with The corporations Act 2001.

Why should any member approach CAsA for advice on jurisprudence?

Actually they should be the last to seek advice on these matters given their record.

misleading statements

Again, CAsA are not the people to talk to. If the Board are misleading the shareholder/members someone should ring ASIC.

Oh! That's been done already?

Oh! There's been a Court case and they agree?

Perhaps there is an action you can take against ASIC and CAsA?

[Creampuff]

Buck

Mr Rolph-Smith and the membership of AWAL are entitled to have the entity run in accordance with the Corporations Law.

What someone in CASA says about the content of draft Part 132 is entirely irrelevant to:

(a) the rights and obligations of AWAL, its Board and membership under the Corporations Law; and

(b) what the draft Part 132 regulations actually mean.

[LeadSled]

Creampuff I agree with you, but a simple call to Mick English in CASA will squash the misleading statements about Part 132, this would also have saved our small membership 50 Grand.. and the embarisment.

Buck,
The best way to find out what is in Part 132 is read Part 132, very carefully, including all the implications therein. Have you done that?

Mr. English mentioned may well have his view, but being an employee of CASA does not make whatever he says "gospel". His interpretation or understanding of the law is not "the law". It is what is in the proposed legislative changes that counts.

I strongly recommend you read the documents carefully, all of them, and then tell us why the overview of the major implication, prepared by Stephen Dines, is incorrect. Let us have facts, not assertions.

I also invite you to explain why a certain segment of aircraft should be denied an Experimental certificate in the Part 21 Exhibition category, if this is the wish of the owner of the aircraft, and the aircraft physically qualifies.

After all, and contrary to what was said by "CASA" at the AWAL AGM, the Experimental Exhibition category is intended for its clear purpose, it is not intended to be just a short term home for a segment of the aircraft that can quite legitimately be issues a permanent Experimental Certificate in the Exhibition category.

I do hope you understand that the matter of:

• what is an appropriate air safety regulatory category for certification in Part 21, for an aircraft, and;
• which body has administrative jurisdiction over that aircraft,
• are two entirely different issues.

The AWAL members are stuck with a big legal bill because a majority of the board of AWAL refused to comply with S.173 of the Corporations Act 2001.


Nothing to do with CASA.


Tootle pip!!

PS: Oz,
It is what is in the proposed legislation that is the problem. Those changes are not on the CASA web site, they have not even been made available to the SCC, unlike all other regulatory change proposals that have reached this stage of development. That fact, alone, is significant, in my opinion.

[Buck Rogers]

Lead sled
In regards to part132 experimental this is from the regulator CASA not warbirds, what I am talking about is the 50k fifty thousand $50000 fifty thousand dollars legal bill to the Warbird Aeroclub Membership ,not the big jet ego right and wrong, it's the members.......got it yet ...

[CrushDepth]

Hey, as a member of AWAL, I'm interested to understand what parts of Corporations Law the Association is actually in contravention of?

How about this Legal Bill....how do we know it's $50,000?

[VH-MLE]

Quotes from a previous thread...

“If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.”

Yes, that sums it up pretty well I think. I recall not that many years ago an organisation representing a sizeable number of pilots in this country were in a reasonably strong position to influence government policy at the GA level in Australia. Unfortunately, a significant amount of in-fighting (largely ego driven at the time I thought) ultimately led to the status quo being maintained.

Once again the same old names keep re-appearing - different topic, but the same old (ego driven) factional infighting!!

It's no wonder nothing changes in GA in this country and you you continue to blame it all on CASA!!!

[Creampuff]

I suppose the question is whether it’s correlation or causation.

The nature of most of these organisations is that they are run by volunteers without much, if any, understanding of the fact that the officers and members have obligations and rights at law. Not criticising – just sayin’…

In those circumstances it’s easy for people to assume they can make stuff up as they go along, and make any decisions they like – it’s ‘their’ ‘club’ - but it’s equally easy for people who understand the obligations and rights of officers and members to throw cold water over these decisions.

The course of events described by Mr Rolph-Smith fits this pattern, precisely.

Is that outcome the fault of the people whose rights were being ignored, and have now been vindicated?

[Frank Arouet]

I would recommend a read of "Duties and Responsibilities of Directors and Officers" by Professor Robert Baxt. ISSN 1446-8565 as a first step in recognising who's club/ organisation AWAL is.

[LeadSled]

In regards to part132 experimental this is from the regulator CASA not warbirds

Buck,
With all due respect, you do not seem to have any more understanding of the rule-making process than nonosense, and you certainly seem to have little understanding of how the present rules came into being ---- as a matter of Government policy and actions, NOT CASA.

It is Government that make the rules, not departments and statutory authorities, who only propose rules to government ---- haven't you ever heard of lobbying, when a segment of the community disagrees with proposals for legislation? Think the Rudd mining super profits tax, or the present threats to free speech.

Why do you think all the other sub-parts of Part 132 have disappeared (you can read that much on the CASA web site, Ozbusdriver put up the link) leaving only the Warbirds bit --- lobbying.

Or, perhaps, you agree with the oppressive limitations inherent in the changes to Part 21 and the new Part 132.

I repeat again, the Government policy, that has served Australia well, since 1998, is:

The aviation community in Australia should have the same rights and freedoms as the USA.

Put another way:

The Australia aviation community should NOT be saddled with all sorts of Australian unique RESTRICTIVE rules and regulations that have no genuine demonstrated and cost/benefit justified safety basis.

What is the problem you have with this concept of rights and freedoms, that you are apparently prepared to just sit back and "cop it", as they are whittled away.

This applies to the whole aviation community, not just the very small segment involved here.

The operators of Australian registered large airline aircraft were the immediate beneficiaries of the 1998 changes, there was a major boost to international competitiveness.

What is being proposed here (but is a long long way from becoming law) is completely contrary to the spirit and intent, now in present law, of that Government policy.

If you want to believe that wanting to preserve the present rights and freedoms of the aviation community is just somebody exercising a "big jet ego", so be it.

However, give the whole of the AWAL membership the right to decide, after they are properly informed about all sides of the argument, not just "Dispatches" that are little more than value free propaganda.

I suggest you forget playing the man, and play the ball. You never know, if you are an AWAL member, it could be in your own personal interest, have you though of that??

Hey, as a member of AWAL, I'm interested to understand what parts of Corporations Law the Association is actually in contravention of?

Crush depth,
Hasn't anybody from AWAL board or management ( except for the President, Kim Rolph-Smith, at his own expense) told you?
As has been stated here, several times, the finding of the Supreme Court of Queensland was re. S.173 of the Corporations Act 2001. You can look it up on ComLaw. While you are there, have a look at Part 2D.1, regulations S.179 through 189.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

To put crush depth out of his misery, an official elected by a meeting of shareholders or members can only be removed by another meeting of members NOT by unilateral action of the other Directors, furthermore, company records CANNOT be withheld from any Director.

[LeadSled]

----an official elected by a meeting of shareholders or members can only be removed by another meeting of members NOT by unilateral action of the other Directors, furthermore, company records CANNOT be withheld from any Director.

Sunfish,
Such simple concepts, so clearly stated in the Corporations Act 2001, seem to be eternally beyond the comprehension of some members of boards of organisations such as AWAL and AOPA.

Even the recent ructions at the Qantas Founders Memorial Museum at Longreach had similar attributes. In this case, at least S.173 was observed, there was no need for legal action, and the consequent bill.

Tootle pip!!

PS:

Is that outcome the fault of the people whose rights were being ignored, and have now been vindicated?

Again, Creamie has it right.

[Buck Rogers]

Lead sled you are a complete Dope, the point I was making It was not Warbirds who was making experimental change over to limited, that's the message.
Do you think giving the members a 50k legal bill will result in a trophy at the end of year party for the voluntary president. I'm glad warbirds didn't challenge the ruling as it would have cost the membership a lot more. Oh yes and, what is the saving result. EGO.....intact that's got to be worth it.

[LeadSled]

Lead sled you are a complete Dope, the point I was making It was not Warbirds who was making experimental change over to limited, that's the message.

Buck,
Boy, Oh! Boy,
You just don't understand, do you. Why don't you do some serious homework on learning about the processes for Commonwealth regulation making, then re-read these posts.

I note that you choose to make no comment on the loss of rights and freedoms inherent in the changes.

Should I conclude from that, that you believe aviation in Australia should be subject to unique restrictive regulations unknown in the US. I invite you to tell us all why Australian aviation needs such restrictions on rights and freedoms.

As to denying some aircraft, which quite legitimately qualify for an Exhibition certificate,that certificate, the Secretary of AWAL blew the whistle on that one at the AGM , admitting it was for the purpose of bolstering AWAL revenue. Do you believe CASA can make regulations for such a purpose?

Not for any air safety purpose. Do you understand the provision of the relevant sections of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

Do you understand that the original agreement between AWAL and CASA (it's all in the records) was for AWAL to administer the self same Experimental Exhibition aircraft --- as Experimental Exhibition aircraft --- no change of certification, with the associated highly fraught new liability issues now being generated ---- for both AWAL and CASA. And that is all without consideration of the cost to be generated, one off and ongoing, that will be born by aircraft owners.

I am quite certain you have no idea of the liabilities inherent in the proposed method of deciding which current Experimental Exhibition aircraft can be issued with a Limited Certificate, if at all.

Please read and try and understand what is actually contained in the proposed legislative changes --- you cannot rely on an individual from CASA saying "She'll be right, mate". Thoroughly read Stephen Dines overview of the changes, he has a long and well documented history of being right.

Put quite simply, the very limited "private use" benefit of the proposed change (and you should read what it actually say, not what somebody assures you it say) could be achieved by far more simple means.

There is no valid justification for Part 132, at all.
You seem to be quite happy to adopt the position of: BOHICA.

Tootle pip!!

[T28D]

Buck Rodgers asyou are a newby to Pprune maybe a simple look at facts will calm your ardour.

Look up Supreme Court of Queensland BS 290 of 2013 in Com Law.

Thems the facts.