Australian Warbirds
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead sled
You mentioned unrestricted like the US you poor uniformed little pilot. Like needing to lodge your program letter every year and restrictions in distance traveled from your home base, need to renew your FAST card every year for formation, formation wing card formation lead card, piston, jet, no adventure flights allowed in the US. The US has it easy. wake up.
You mentioned unrestricted like the US you poor uniformed little pilot. Like needing to lodge your program letter every year and restrictions in distance traveled from your home base, need to renew your FAST card every year for formation, formation wing card formation lead card, piston, jet, no adventure flights allowed in the US. The US has it easy. wake up.
---- no adventure flights allowed in the US.
Izzatso, Don't know much about the US Limited Category, do you?
Like needing to lodge your program letter every year and restrictions in distance traveled from your home base
Do you understand what a simple and straightforward process that is, the most expensive bit is the stamp on the envelope -- if you lodge it that way.
Of course, as a member of EAA/Warbirds of America, and an FAA licensed CPL, (real one, not a validation) what would I know about it?
What do you think will be the attitude here, by roughly the same group of people, to the "private use" provisions in Part 132. I don't think it will be silence, and Cessna for one, is quite renowned for its lobbying success in Australia, going right back to when Bob Menzies was PM.
As for the rest, all you are talking about is qualifications and recency, that is not anything to do with the proposed changes to Part 21 and the daft Part 132. I certainly have no issue with the FAST requirements, or the principles of the FAST Foundation. Indeed, this foundation is an excellent example of multi-Association cooperation to address air safety issues of a highly specialized nature.
Play the ball, and not the man, and how about you address some of the valid issues raised here, rather than just venting your spleen (all sorts of visions come to mind) about me, and who you believe I am.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 3rd Feb 2013 at 05:33.
Buck
If you indeed joined PPRuNe in 2001 and have spent most of the intervening period as an observer rather than a post-er, you would have seen that LeadSled and I have had numerous disagreements on numerous issues.
On the issues.
Suggesting that anyone, much less LeadSled, is a “complete Dope”?
Not a good look.
If you indeed joined PPRuNe in 2001 and have spent most of the intervening period as an observer rather than a post-er, you would have seen that LeadSled and I have had numerous disagreements on numerous issues.
On the issues.
Suggesting that anyone, much less LeadSled, is a “complete Dope”?
Not a good look.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
careful what you wish for
Hey Buck
Have you ever checked the Oz requirements? Hope you submitted your annual program letter to CASA. 
Like needing to lodge your program letter every year
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but one plus one does not appear to equal two here...
I've just been back and re-read the previous posts in this thread, including the 'letters' from the President, and they all imply that he had concerns AWAL was in contravention of the Corporations Act prior to any alledged attempt by the other members of the board to remove him....
Thanks for the answer SunFish and Leadsled, but that answer does not appear to work chronologically.
I'm just trying to understand how AWAL might be not in compliance with the Coporations Act.
And how would we know what the court costs are? I hear a lot of wild claims but see very little substantiation...
The other interesting issues are:
a) Seems strange for the President to claim all these concerns re functioning of the AWAL Board after being the President for three years... after all, isn't he the president and the leadership of the board his responsibility?
b) How come all these concerns come to light so close to an election?
Sorry guys, but when things smell funny, they usually are....
I think Captain Dart started this thread asking for a balanced view on what was going on....the responses don't look very balanced to me...
I've just been back and re-read the previous posts in this thread, including the 'letters' from the President, and they all imply that he had concerns AWAL was in contravention of the Corporations Act prior to any alledged attempt by the other members of the board to remove him....
Thanks for the answer SunFish and Leadsled, but that answer does not appear to work chronologically.
I'm just trying to understand how AWAL might be not in compliance with the Coporations Act.
And how would we know what the court costs are? I hear a lot of wild claims but see very little substantiation...
The other interesting issues are:
a) Seems strange for the President to claim all these concerns re functioning of the AWAL Board after being the President for three years... after all, isn't he the president and the leadership of the board his responsibility?
b) How come all these concerns come to light so close to an election?
Sorry guys, but when things smell funny, they usually are....
I think Captain Dart started this thread asking for a balanced view on what was going on....the responses don't look very balanced to me...
Crush Depth. When it comes to Corporations Law it is not a matter of "balance" the Supreme Court ruling is a matter of fact.
Furthermore, the duties, responsibilities and rights of Company Directors are also settled law and no "Balance" is required. To put that another way are you suggesting that we require "evenhandedness" when discussing the law of gravity?
When it comes to opinion of course we can ask for "balance" and I enjoy reading the perspectives about the proposed changes to the Warbirds rules - something I know little about.
The facts so far would appear to support an argument that there has been signifigant dysfunction at Board and Management level within an organisation. I call it "dysfunction" because it appears to relate to the operation of the Board and management - a matter of corporate governance.
Disagreement among Board members about the policy and actions of management are in a totally different category and are subject to robust debate as they should be, but not matters of governance.
...And if it is all about matters deemed really important, then chuck the issues back to the members for their decision. I have just been part of such a process (extraordinary general meetings, information nights etc.) on a $1.2 million chunk of yacht club infrastructure.
Furthermore, the duties, responsibilities and rights of Company Directors are also settled law and no "Balance" is required. To put that another way are you suggesting that we require "evenhandedness" when discussing the law of gravity?
When it comes to opinion of course we can ask for "balance" and I enjoy reading the perspectives about the proposed changes to the Warbirds rules - something I know little about.
The facts so far would appear to support an argument that there has been signifigant dysfunction at Board and Management level within an organisation. I call it "dysfunction" because it appears to relate to the operation of the Board and management - a matter of corporate governance.
Disagreement among Board members about the policy and actions of management are in a totally different category and are subject to robust debate as they should be, but not matters of governance.
...And if it is all about matters deemed really important, then chuck the issues back to the members for their decision. I have just been part of such a process (extraordinary general meetings, information nights etc.) on a $1.2 million chunk of yacht club infrastructure.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crush Depth Court Costs are set to quite rigid terms and are subject to Taxing by the court if there is a dispute as to quantum,costs are in fact quite easy to estimate, the Plaintiffs costs were +$15 K so it is logical the respondents costs were similar and there were 2 sitting days of the Qld Supreme Court.
$50 K will be a conservative estimate me thinks.
The court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded costs to the plaintiff as is normal so AWAL is now faced with the costs order.
$50 K will be a conservative estimate me thinks.
The court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded costs to the plaintiff as is normal so AWAL is now faced with the costs order.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T28D, why would it have been heard in the Supreme Court?
There is concern around regarding some dysfunction of the AWAL organisation. This claim regarding dysfunction seems to be all coming from one person, combined with two other bloggers on this site who seem to be aligned with that person.
The person claiming dysfunctionality is in fact the President, whose role it is to ensure functionality...
So it looks like we have one person apparently at odds with the remainder of AWAL management (all of whom are apparently warbird operators / owners themselves). That person is claiming skulduggery and proposing to elect 'his team' to the board.
What motivation could possibly result in all the remaining members (paid and unpaid) of AWAL management being against the President?
How do we know what we are being told is true?
Why would the board be in favour of Part 132 (noting they will be affected by it just as much as any other member) if it was as bad as we are being told?
There is concern around regarding some dysfunction of the AWAL organisation. This claim regarding dysfunction seems to be all coming from one person, combined with two other bloggers on this site who seem to be aligned with that person.
The person claiming dysfunctionality is in fact the President, whose role it is to ensure functionality...
So it looks like we have one person apparently at odds with the remainder of AWAL management (all of whom are apparently warbird operators / owners themselves). That person is claiming skulduggery and proposing to elect 'his team' to the board.
What motivation could possibly result in all the remaining members (paid and unpaid) of AWAL management being against the President?
How do we know what we are being told is true?
Why would the board be in favour of Part 132 (noting they will be affected by it just as much as any other member) if it was as bad as we are being told?
These guys are out of my league. However, something doesn't gel. Take a ground up restoration of a typical warbird, I have now watched no less than three from what I would have called scrap to flying status...cubic dollars! The owners spare no expense in the restorations to museum quality!
Why would these people worry about, effectively, the cost of a newspaper?
On theface of it, Experimental as opposed to Limited. The goal is limited but these aircraft end up as experimental..?, Something doesn't gel!
There is something else happening here, it is not money. Either AWAL is dicking around with the paperwork or an individual is dicking around. This thing with the CASA smells like a turd wrapped up in silk. Someone on the AWAL board better have a real look otherwise there will be warbirds grounded everywhere. The CASA is not interested in making things easier, they are after something else. No volunteers means a lot of the real expertise will be forbidden from helping out. There is guy I know that is very retired yet is instrumental in amassing theknowledge needed to ressurect Gobblin engines because he built the things when they were new. Under the new rules he will no longer be able to help or even touch them. No AMEs only LAMES or is that B2B3...with school learned experience on engines and systems that predate their dads let alone the lecturers...
What is wrong with this and I am very wary isthe two posters arguing the case against. Leadie and T28D, you two have history that makes it hard to see which path is the right one. What I have seen backs up your argument but there has to be more to this than arguing about a regulation that hasn't made it to NPRM stage.
Very much on the sidelines but...my opinion. Something doesn't look right. It isn't the cost of registration, It is the process that needs looking at.
Why would these people worry about, effectively, the cost of a newspaper?
On theface of it, Experimental as opposed to Limited. The goal is limited but these aircraft end up as experimental..?, Something doesn't gel!
There is something else happening here, it is not money. Either AWAL is dicking around with the paperwork or an individual is dicking around. This thing with the CASA smells like a turd wrapped up in silk. Someone on the AWAL board better have a real look otherwise there will be warbirds grounded everywhere. The CASA is not interested in making things easier, they are after something else. No volunteers means a lot of the real expertise will be forbidden from helping out. There is guy I know that is very retired yet is instrumental in amassing theknowledge needed to ressurect Gobblin engines because he built the things when they were new. Under the new rules he will no longer be able to help or even touch them. No AMEs only LAMES or is that B2B3...with school learned experience on engines and systems that predate their dads let alone the lecturers...
What is wrong with this and I am very wary isthe two posters arguing the case against. Leadie and T28D, you two have history that makes it hard to see which path is the right one. What I have seen backs up your argument but there has to be more to this than arguing about a regulation that hasn't made it to NPRM stage.
Very much on the sidelines but...my opinion. Something doesn't look right. It isn't the cost of registration, It is the process that needs looking at.
crushdepth,
Reasonable questions to ask:
In one of the documents posted here, you will read a mea culpa by the President, as he started to realise the seriousness of what was actually being proposed in regulation, as opposed to what had previously only been described/sold as a "good thing"--- and realised his responsibilities at law as a director, required him to look much more closely at what was/is going on.
I would think that the alarm bells really began to ring, when he was denied access to company information that is the right of any director of a public company, a matter dealt with in his letter to members. In my opinion, a clear prima faci case of company non-compliance with the Act.
He then made application under S.173, which is open to anybody, not limited to directors or members/shareholder, he was again refused. Hence the court case, which he won.
As Creampuff has said, in one of his posts, inadequate knowledge of the duties of directors, particularly in small non-profit companies limited by guarantee, is not uncommon.
However, the law does not make allowance for such things, but places a burden on people taking up such positions to have knowledge adequate to the task of discharging their duties diligently and honestly, and only in the interests of the company, ie: the members. If they feel inadequate to the task, they should not accept the position. As you may know, signing the formal acceptance of the position is acknowledgement that you believe you are up to the job and accept the responsibilities.
The proceeding surrounding the National Safety Council, Victorian Division, some years ago, are very instructive. As I recall, the Chairman of the Board was very heavily penalised, his defence, essentially, was that he was unaware of what was going on. The court did not accept the defence.
There is now a large body of interested persons who understand the ramifications of the proposed exclusion from Part 21 Experimental Exhibition of a whole category of aircraft, that currently qualify for such a certificate.
In my opinion, the definitions and scope are so badly drafted that even various half and three quarter scale P-51D Mustangs, and sundry Spitfire, Me-109, FW 190, Fokker Tri-Plane, Bristol Fighters etc. are caught up in this unnecessary change.
There is no air safety purpose for this change. Bolstering the revenue of AWAL is not an air safety purpose. Previous in-principle agreements with CASA were that AWAL would assume administrative responsibility for ex-military aircraft in this category, without any suggestion of a category change.
Experimental Exhibition was and should remain the appropriate place for aircraft that qualify, and being the (usually only, to date) choice of the owner.
Part 132 contains a whole raft of new and very prescriptive provision, with quite draconian penalties. There are (and were previously subject to agreement between AWAL and CASA) alternative ways of handling the largely administrative matters covered in Part 132, without resort to the full weight of the criminal law.
For the balance of Part 132, the existing aviation law is quite adequate, and the provisions of CAR (1988) 262AM and AN were to be absorbed into Part 91, a matter also previously agree between AWAL and CASA.
As for divisions on the board of AWAL, the President has done his homework, and extensively consulted his solicitor and others, he sees the position of the members interests quite clearly. He now understands the immediate and potential ramifications of the proposed changes.
In my opinion, other member of the board of AWAL, or the balance of the board collectively, seem to have articulated a position justifying their apparent support for the, in balance, the very onerous proposed changes.
In my opinion, at this very late stage of this regulatory development process, it is not adequate for the board to say they have not formed a view as to support for or opposition to the changes.
This now leaves CASA (who, in my opinion, on very reasonable grounds, undoubtedly believed they had 100% support of AWAL) and AWAL in a very invidious position.
Tootle pip!!
Reasonable questions to ask:
In one of the documents posted here, you will read a mea culpa by the President, as he started to realise the seriousness of what was actually being proposed in regulation, as opposed to what had previously only been described/sold as a "good thing"--- and realised his responsibilities at law as a director, required him to look much more closely at what was/is going on.
I would think that the alarm bells really began to ring, when he was denied access to company information that is the right of any director of a public company, a matter dealt with in his letter to members. In my opinion, a clear prima faci case of company non-compliance with the Act.
He then made application under S.173, which is open to anybody, not limited to directors or members/shareholder, he was again refused. Hence the court case, which he won.
As Creampuff has said, in one of his posts, inadequate knowledge of the duties of directors, particularly in small non-profit companies limited by guarantee, is not uncommon.
However, the law does not make allowance for such things, but places a burden on people taking up such positions to have knowledge adequate to the task of discharging their duties diligently and honestly, and only in the interests of the company, ie: the members. If they feel inadequate to the task, they should not accept the position. As you may know, signing the formal acceptance of the position is acknowledgement that you believe you are up to the job and accept the responsibilities.
The proceeding surrounding the National Safety Council, Victorian Division, some years ago, are very instructive. As I recall, the Chairman of the Board was very heavily penalised, his defence, essentially, was that he was unaware of what was going on. The court did not accept the defence.
There is now a large body of interested persons who understand the ramifications of the proposed exclusion from Part 21 Experimental Exhibition of a whole category of aircraft, that currently qualify for such a certificate.
In my opinion, the definitions and scope are so badly drafted that even various half and three quarter scale P-51D Mustangs, and sundry Spitfire, Me-109, FW 190, Fokker Tri-Plane, Bristol Fighters etc. are caught up in this unnecessary change.
There is no air safety purpose for this change. Bolstering the revenue of AWAL is not an air safety purpose. Previous in-principle agreements with CASA were that AWAL would assume administrative responsibility for ex-military aircraft in this category, without any suggestion of a category change.
Experimental Exhibition was and should remain the appropriate place for aircraft that qualify, and being the (usually only, to date) choice of the owner.
Part 132 contains a whole raft of new and very prescriptive provision, with quite draconian penalties. There are (and were previously subject to agreement between AWAL and CASA) alternative ways of handling the largely administrative matters covered in Part 132, without resort to the full weight of the criminal law.
For the balance of Part 132, the existing aviation law is quite adequate, and the provisions of CAR (1988) 262AM and AN were to be absorbed into Part 91, a matter also previously agree between AWAL and CASA.
As for divisions on the board of AWAL, the President has done his homework, and extensively consulted his solicitor and others, he sees the position of the members interests quite clearly. He now understands the immediate and potential ramifications of the proposed changes.
In my opinion, other member of the board of AWAL, or the balance of the board collectively, seem to have articulated a position justifying their apparent support for the, in balance, the very onerous proposed changes.
In my opinion, at this very late stage of this regulatory development process, it is not adequate for the board to say they have not formed a view as to support for or opposition to the changes.
This now leaves CASA (who, in my opinion, on very reasonable grounds, undoubtedly believed they had 100% support of AWAL) and AWAL in a very invidious position.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Feb 2013 at 05:36.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled,
Thanks for that.
I am aware that there was a meeting scheduled for Sunday 10 February (called by the AWAL board), the idea of which was to get the issues associated with Part 132 out into the open.
CASA are going, all board nominees (including those whom the president has described as 'his team') were invited, as well as a number of prominent warbird stakeholders (HARs, Temora etc). The concept was to allow people the opportunity to question CASA on the new legislation.
Apparently, the President has now threatened to take AWAL to court again, if the meeting goes ahead.
Why would he do this? The only reason I could think of is that perhaps he has been promulgating information that is incorrect and he is now concerned that the truth will come out.....
Thanks for that.
I am aware that there was a meeting scheduled for Sunday 10 February (called by the AWAL board), the idea of which was to get the issues associated with Part 132 out into the open.
CASA are going, all board nominees (including those whom the president has described as 'his team') were invited, as well as a number of prominent warbird stakeholders (HARs, Temora etc). The concept was to allow people the opportunity to question CASA on the new legislation.
Apparently, the President has now threatened to take AWAL to court again, if the meeting goes ahead.
Why would he do this? The only reason I could think of is that perhaps he has been promulgating information that is incorrect and he is now concerned that the truth will come out.....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potential for disaster.
I expect everyone involved sees there exists a huge potential for disaster looming. The corporate conflict, requiring Supreme Court intervention, letters flying about the place; and, an in house war do not add up to stable, sensible self administration. If CASA did not have doubts about the organisations ability to 'self govern' previously, there is ample cause, right now.
I hear; and, 'tis only rumour that RA Oz is having similar problems – the common enemy is the CASA micro management of everything. I have no idea where the notion "divided we fall, – united we stand" came from; but holy Kaahboom Batman. There's a lot at stake, freedom of the sky (within reason), self administration, lots of dollars invested - bet against a big potential for enforced bad legislation etc. etc. Lots to play for: cut out the dead, corrupt wood and get on with being a great example of "self administration" that works. There is enough talent within the membership to 'ace' it.
I suggest that with the present CASA outfit, the hard won privileges and freedoms should not be lightly traded off by allowing an in house power struggle to provide an excuse for 'interference' by outside entities. A world without "War-birds Australia" would affect only a few.
Play nice, but play together. There are enough troubles in aviation at the moment.
I hear; and, 'tis only rumour that RA Oz is having similar problems – the common enemy is the CASA micro management of everything. I have no idea where the notion "divided we fall, – united we stand" came from; but holy Kaahboom Batman. There's a lot at stake, freedom of the sky (within reason), self administration, lots of dollars invested - bet against a big potential for enforced bad legislation etc. etc. Lots to play for: cut out the dead, corrupt wood and get on with being a great example of "self administration" that works. There is enough talent within the membership to 'ace' it.
I suggest that with the present CASA outfit, the hard won privileges and freedoms should not be lightly traded off by allowing an in house power struggle to provide an excuse for 'interference' by outside entities. A world without "War-birds Australia" would affect only a few.
Play nice, but play together. There are enough troubles in aviation at the moment.
Last edited by Kharon; 4th Feb 2013 at 08:10. Reason: Cruising for a bruising???
CD
Perhaps Mr R-S is worried there's going to be another breach of the law?
You don't seem to understand what being the elected officer of an entity subject to the Corporations Law means.
Let's assume Mr R-S is "the problem". The solution is to have a proper meeting of the members, have a proper vote and remove him from office. Then the members have determined the outcome (in accordance with their rights as well as M R-S's rights).
Mr R-S goes to court, and the court finds he's correct, and that's his fault?
Perhaps a teensy weensy part of the problem is caused by whomever the court found not to be complying with the Corporations Law (which law, after all, is there to, among other things, protect the members).
Perhaps Mr R-S is worried there's going to be another breach of the law?
You don't seem to understand what being the elected officer of an entity subject to the Corporations Law means.
Let's assume Mr R-S is "the problem". The solution is to have a proper meeting of the members, have a proper vote and remove him from office. Then the members have determined the outcome (in accordance with their rights as well as M R-S's rights).
Mr R-S goes to court, and the court finds he's correct, and that's his fault?
Perhaps a teensy weensy part of the problem is caused by whomever the court found not to be complying with the Corporations Law (which law, after all, is there to, among other things, protect the members).
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect Mr CreamPuff, I am a Director 3 times over at the moment! So I have some understanding of the Corporations Act and what it means to navigate an organisation in accordance with it....
Not that I am an expert by any means, and I am always keen to learn more...
I think we'll find that there is no substantiation for 'AWAL being in breach of the Corporations Act' as a reason for the President commencing this lobbying exercise....and the Court Ruling everyone is referring to is a different matter...he states it was about getting access to the Membership List...after the convened AGM. (Which is months later than he claimed he 'realised' the organisation was in breach of the law).
I agree with Kharon. What is sure is that this public foray does not give the Regulator a very good view of AWAL, which is the real concern. I personally have recently heard CASA describe AWAL as the 'model of Self - Administration', will they think the same thing after all this?
And in any respect, whether or not a meeting held with the intention of allowing members to interact with CASA and learn about new legislation is entirely in accordance with a constitution and therefore 'illegal' is irrelevant. It would only be deemed 'illegal' if someone were to make an issue of it, and who would do so if they were truly acting in the interest of the members and AWAL?
I don't think I've got anything else to say on this matter, I'm pretty sure I know what is going on, and my feeling is (based on the number of people I've spoken to) that most people are intelligent enough to see through the spin that is being thrown around the membership!
Not that I am an expert by any means, and I am always keen to learn more...I think we'll find that there is no substantiation for 'AWAL being in breach of the Corporations Act' as a reason for the President commencing this lobbying exercise....and the Court Ruling everyone is referring to is a different matter...he states it was about getting access to the Membership List...after the convened AGM. (Which is months later than he claimed he 'realised' the organisation was in breach of the law).
I agree with Kharon. What is sure is that this public foray does not give the Regulator a very good view of AWAL, which is the real concern. I personally have recently heard CASA describe AWAL as the 'model of Self - Administration', will they think the same thing after all this?
And in any respect, whether or not a meeting held with the intention of allowing members to interact with CASA and learn about new legislation is entirely in accordance with a constitution and therefore 'illegal' is irrelevant. It would only be deemed 'illegal' if someone were to make an issue of it, and who would do so if they were truly acting in the interest of the members and AWAL?
I don't think I've got anything else to say on this matter, I'm pretty sure I know what is going on, and my feeling is (based on the number of people I've spoken to) that most people are intelligent enough to see through the spin that is being thrown around the membership!
--- the president wouldn’t accept the method of electing nominees to the board.
I gotta say, I just love the name!!!
That statement above is correct, he wouldn't accept any of the proposals of the Secretary because his advice was that none were acceptable, as far as the Act was concerned. You don't seem to understand that company Articles are not the only consideration, there is the not inconsequential presence of the Corporation Act 2001.
All proposals presented had one thing in common, they denied a large proportion of the membership, those who could only vote by proxy, the right to vote for candidates of their choice.
If you think the above is the main issue in this whole matter, you are sadly mistaken, the main issue is the proposed legislative change, and its immediate and long term consequences.
Leadsled and T-28D now claim the current AWAL Secretary is the one with the idea of grabbing experimental aircraft into Limited, to boost AWAL coffers. Read on:
That is NOT what we have said, what we have said is that there is no need for aircraft to be denied a certificate in the Experimental Exhibition category, if they are to be administered by AWAL.
We have further said, time and again, that denying aircraft a certificate in the Experimental Exhibition category, and forcing the change of category is a regulatory change that is not for an air safety purpose. On that grounds alone, this change is unlikely to see the statute books.
We have further pointed out that it was the Secretary who made the statement,(which is not the same as thinking up the idea, was that statement a Freudian slip ) at the AWAL AGM, that the reason for the regulatory change was to bolster AWAL funds. That is not a proper purpose for regulation making under the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
We have also pointed out that a CASA representative at the AGM made the statement that the change to Part 21 was because "Experimental" was not a permanent category for an aircraft.
If that is one of the "test and development" or "show compliance" sub-section of "Experimental" , for example, that is certainly true. It is certainly not true for aircraft in the Experimental Amateur Built or the Experimental Exhibition/Air Racing categories, where it is quite clear that the certificates are permanent.
Bill Hamilton proposed that AWAL formally approach CASA to transfer exp exhib category to AWAL self admin. Resolution no. 11, Bill Hamilton/Kim Rolph-Smith/unan.
If you told the whole story, (that is, if you know) it would include subsequent CASA senior management agreement with that proposition as part of the phased transfer of administrative responsibilities for certain aircraft to AWAL. It also included a parallel path for people who wanted to have nothing to do with AWAL, nor was there to be compulsory membership of AWAL, just a member's discount on administration fees to encourage membership. And a ripper deal for passenger insurance, moderate in costs and paid by the passengers, that most Adventure Flight operators on the board rejected out of hand.
Did you bother to read the documents posted here, now distributed to all AWAL members, it's there! All without the radical changes now proposed, change that, as Creampuff rightly forecasts, are unlikely to make it onto the statute books.
As for you reprinting that internal board email purportedly from Mr. Rolph-Smith, so much for the so called code of conduct and confidentiality.
However, I don't doubt its authenticity or content,but could it just be that some of the board members mentioned were sold a bill of goods, to come to that view. Just who brought the story to the board?? I can say, without fear of contradiction, that Dines and Hamilton were never actually informed of what heinous crimes they had allegedly committed in Canberra. Were Dines and Hamilton ever given the opportunity to put their version of events?? Or was it just a lot of assertions and pseudo-legal waffle.
Much like the pseudo-legal waffle that preceded the recent the court appearance in Brisbane, and the very expensive loss suffered by AWAL, as a direct result.
----whether or not a meeting held with the intention of allowing members to interact with CASA and learn about new legislation is entirely in accordance with a constitution and therefore 'illegal' is irrelevant. It would only be deemed 'illegal' if someone were to make an issue of it,
Do you have any understanding of the limitation on board activity in "caretaker mode" during the adjournment.
I just love the concept that breaches of the Act are only breaches of the Act if "someone were to make an issue of it". I wonder what ASIC thinks of that concept, I think AWAL might be going to find out.
As to interacting with CASA", any CASA persons discussing the meanings of the propose changes will only be stating opinions as to what the regulations mean in practice, and they will most certainly NOT be the people enforcing the regulations.
Ultimately, what they mean will be decided by the AAT and the courts.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Feb 2013 at 11:38.
Moderator
Nononsence
I removed your last post as it contained quotes from the War Birds Association internal documentation and correspondence. I do not believe you have the authority of that organisation or the authors of the documents to publish it's internal correspondence, I do not believe it appropriate you post that on PPRuNe and neither I nor the other Mods are interested in you or anyone else hanging the War Birds Association dirty washing out in our Forum.
PPRuNe is predominantly a forum for professional pilots, not a forum for a bunch of school girls to stage a hand bag punch up.
Having sorted out the AOPA wars a number of years ago, we are not interested in the problems and issues of another organisation's internal bickering being posted here.
Toe the line otherwise you or anyone else that can't play the game, will lose their thread access (or even PPRuNe access) so fast it'll make your eyes water!
And before the old Mod bias thing gets dragged out, no I have no involvement in any way with war birds or anyone that posts in this thread. No interest. Nada. Zip.
I removed your last post as it contained quotes from the War Birds Association internal documentation and correspondence. I do not believe you have the authority of that organisation or the authors of the documents to publish it's internal correspondence, I do not believe it appropriate you post that on PPRuNe and neither I nor the other Mods are interested in you or anyone else hanging the War Birds Association dirty washing out in our Forum.
PPRuNe is predominantly a forum for professional pilots, not a forum for a bunch of school girls to stage a hand bag punch up.
Having sorted out the AOPA wars a number of years ago, we are not interested in the problems and issues of another organisation's internal bickering being posted here.
Toe the line otherwise you or anyone else that can't play the game, will lose their thread access (or even PPRuNe access) so fast it'll make your eyes water!
And before the old Mod bias thing gets dragged out, no I have no involvement in any way with war birds or anyone that posts in this thread. No interest. Nada. Zip.
Well said, tail wheel!
This thread has become just a little bit too personal in my view, as identified by Creampuff.
Play the ball, not the man, please everyone.
LeadSled and Creampuff are both accomplished aviators. But LeadSled has the jet hours!
Those of us that have a passion for General Aviation, are not well served by the continual bickering that goes on behind the scenes. Sadly, that never seems to change. If only private aviation in Australia could ever speak in unison, we might finally have some political clout...
We really know how to be our own worst enemies.
This thread has become just a little bit too personal in my view, as identified by Creampuff.
Play the ball, not the man, please everyone.
LeadSled and Creampuff are both accomplished aviators. But LeadSled has the jet hours!
Those of us that have a passion for General Aviation, are not well served by the continual bickering that goes on behind the scenes. Sadly, that never seems to change. If only private aviation in Australia could ever speak in unison, we might finally have some political clout...
We really know how to be our own worst enemies.