RAAus shuffling positions

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, BurnieM said:

 

The separation of GA/RAA instructors is likely to continue as I believe you need a CPL for GA instructor and many RAAus instructors are not interested in going this route. 

So why (other than poorly thought out regulation) can not a GA (CPL) instructor do a Controlled Airspace Endorsement for a RAA pilot???

I prefer an experienced instructor rather that a 25 year old building hours before he goes to the airlines.

Well the best instructor I had, when doing my Tail Wheel Endorsement, was a very young Instructor (younger than my Sons) - left the grizzled old boys in the starting blocks.

 

The reality is,  the syllabus for training a pilot in Australia, is functionally the same no matter RAA or GA. It has to be - we all fly in the same airspace so the same system / understanding, applies to all pilots.

 

😈

Edited Sunday at 12:05 AM by skippydiesel

[jackc]

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

The reality is,  the syllabus for training a pilot in Australia, is functionally the same no matter RAA or GA. It has to be - we all fly in the same airspace so the same system / understanding, applies to all pilots.

 

😈

But RAAus must product their OWN training manual, even IF they plagiarise the content from somewhere else? For their Controlled Airspace Endorsement Training?  

[FlyingVizsla]

Voting starts 3rd September 2026 for two Board positions. 

 

There are three candidates - Andrew Scheiffers, James MacDonald and Shawn Donaldson.  If you are a member you will have received an email with a link to a Live Stream Wed 2nd Sept.  Log on to RAAus - Governance - 2026 Board to view each candidate's statement.  You can also email them for further info.

[skippydiesel]

45 minutes ago, jackc said:

But RAAus must product their OWN training manual, even IF they plagiarise the content from somewhere else? For their Controlled Airspace Endorsement Training?  

IE bureaucratic duplication/inefficiency - its no wonder Australia struggles to be competitive in the wider World.😈

[skippydiesel]

34 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

Voting starts 3rd September 2026 for two Board positions. 

 

There are three candidates - Andrew Scheiffers, James MacDonald and Shawn Donaldson.  If you are a member you will have received an email with a link to a Live Stream Wed 2nd Sept.  Log on to RAAus - Governance - 2026 Board to view each candidate's statement.  You can also email them for further info.

Got any reasoned recomedations?😈

[rodgerc]

 

[skippydiesel]

Not about to "live stream" any time soon 😈

[facthunter]

Gives you time to get organised.  Nev

[BurnieM]

So Andrew Scheiffers is the owner of Learn2Fly Canberra a RAAus/CASA flight school and charter operation and is a current board member.

 

Overview of others ?

 

[T510]

On 30/08/2026 at 6:12 PM, BurnieM said:

So Andrew Scheiffers is the owner of Learn2Fly Canberra a RAAus/CASA flight school and charter operation and is a current board member.

 

Overview of others ?

 

Seems a bit of a conflict of interest owning a flight school and being on the board of the regulator

 

James MacDonald works in telecommunications as a company director and has been flying since 2004 and an RPC holder since 2025

 

Shawn Donaldson in a flex wing pilot who has been flying for 18 months and is the CEO of an IT company

[T510]

FYI - The RAAus site says they have "received three valid nominations for the 2026 Board Election, where three Director positions are available"

 

This is a typo, there are only two Director positions available...

[facthunter]

Knowing a lot about the Industry can't really be a bad thing can it.?. Nev

[jackc]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Knowing a lot about the Industry can't really be a bad thing can it.?. Nev

Not on in my opinion, because inside information may benefit the person themselves?

[facthunter]

 So we prefer some one with Little Knowledge; I| would not like the task of arguing THAT case. Watching what Happens (scrutiny) is required in many instances. IF he's elected HE can be un-elected. . Firms Sponsoring  events. Could they be exerting influence with Management? Nev

[T510]

19 minutes ago, jackc said:

Not on in my opinion, because inside information may benefit the person themselves?

I agree. It is a conflict of interest because their fiduciary duty to the organization directly overlaps with their private commercial interests.

 

There are corporate governance rules that apply to this scenario and he has met the mandatory disclosure requirements.

 

The part I find interesting  is that under standard governance laws, a director who has disclosed a conflict of interest must leave the room and cannot participate in discussions or vote on any matters directly or indirectly affecting the conflict of interest. In this case that would have to include flight training, flight training school operations, fee adjustments, training audit frameworks and potentially any regulatory changes that effect licencing and training.

 

Add to this the perceived conflict of interest where the public or stakeholders might reasonably think private commercial ties could influence the director's judgment regardless of whether a bias exists or not.

 

Surely this makes it hard for a director to have meaningful input if he is excluded from the discussions and votes relating to training.

[BurnieM]

Has he acted against the interests of the membership in the past while he has been a board member ?

 

Surely Andrew Scheiffers having general aviation and industry experience is a good thing ?

 

[T510]

23 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Has he acted against the interests of the membership in the past while he has been a board member ?

 

Surely Andrew Scheiffers having general aviation and industry experience is a good thing ?

 

As RAAus does not publish Board meeting minutes we have no way of knowing if any board members have acted against the interest of the members.

 

Acting against the interest of members is one issue, benefitting commercially/financially from information available to board members is an entirely different issue.

 

Board members should definitely have aviation/industry experience but not if it erodes the members faith in the Board to act in the members best interests.

 

This is not meant as an attack on Andrew, I don't know him or how he runs his business. For all I know he may exclude himself already from discussions/votes that are within his conflict of interest. As we can't see the meeting minutes we do not know.

 

As someone who runs a Not-For-Profit I know how important transparency and member perception is.

 

[ShawnD]

Hi Guys,
By way of introduction, I'm Shawn Donaldson... the aforementioned 18month flexwing pilot and IT CEO... (though I've just changed companies a week ago and no longer in IT), who's applying to be on the board of RAAus.

I found my way to this site while preparing for my presentation on tomorrow's live-stream. 

I'm VERY curious on your opinions, feedback and advice... but before all that... here's why; because I don't really fit the mold of a director for RAAus. For starters, I'm the least knowledgeable in the room when it comes to aviation and certainly when it comes to who's presenting tomorrow. I've been flying for a grand total of 18 months and that's my exposure to aviation. That said, I also come with very little 'baggage' in terms of needing to fit in, being indoctrinated into the RAAus way of doing things, having pre-conceived notions about how things should work inherent with years of experience. I think this is an advantage, not a disadvantage. The role of a director is to be curious, to poke and prod, to look deeper, to challenge the status quo. Yes, they set strategy and risk etc but they need to help the organisation look outside itself. This is what I can bring... and I don't mind asking questions others don't, or being honest about my ignorance.

I read someone in this thread saying that RAAus have been filled with pilots having a go at management. I'm the opposite, I'm a career-long manager having a go at flying... and loving it.

BUT, I've heard a lot of negative feedback about RAAus right from the time I started to become interested in flying, more of it can be found in here. I have fallen in love with flying and I want to help. A healthy organisation with a healthy reputation attracts and retains good people. Maybe, just maybe I can help move RAAus in that direction.

So I guess my two questions to you are;

1) What do you want to see in a pitch tomorrow?
What I mean by this is what would win your interest to actually tune in and what would win your vote? I don't mind being upfront and honest about that, because if I don't succeed in this first hurdle, I can't help with question 2.

2) What do you truly want to see from board members of RAAus?
Don't sugar coat it. What would be the best initiatives that would serve you and thereby serve the organisation?
What should they start doing that they're not?
What should they stop doing?
What should they keep doing because it's working well?

Thanks for hearing me out, and please wish me luck for tomorrow.

Edited Tuesday at 08:17 AM by ShawnD

[Reynard]

Well Shawn, you’ve boldly entered the lions den here - but welcome anyway !

 

What I routinely hear around the hangar is ‘where is the value for money in being an RAAus member (other than a small amount of insurance coverage)?’…..There is a significant annual membership and registration cost compared to GA and other self-administering organisations.

In a related vein, what will turn the membership decline around ? What is the compelling reason to become an RAAus member, compared to other options ?

[skippydiesel]

Welcome Shawn,

 

I applaud your initiative in connecting with this Forum - Could be a first.

 

For myself - I want to see RAA assertively advocate on the members behalf, for such simple things as;

• RAA represented on or at least to, the Australian Airports Association (AAA),
• To make the case for, preferably no Landing Fees for RAA class aircraft. If nil not possible, at least minimal, in recognition of our light weight (almost no impact on infrastructure).
• Standardisation of Landing Fees ie the same fee for the same aircraft, no matter the airfield.
• All regional airfields, Landing Fees posted in ERSA.
• Overturning that part of CASA Part 61 that does not recognise RAA registered aircraft, as aircraft,  such that a  (CASA) GA Instructor cannot conduct a Flight Review (BFR) for a CASA Licensed Pilot (PPL) in an RAA registered aircraft - bureaucratic nonsense.
• The removal of the requirement for Australian private pilots (RAA & others) to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) for access to most small Regional Security Controlled airports - nil security benefit, just an added pilots cost for no demonstrable gain (essentially a charge nor no service).
• RAA post regular updates on their advocacy - The topic, how it's going  (progressing or not) how the membership may be able to help expedite the process.

You will find most of the arguments on the above in this Forum. Should you prefer, I am more than happy to discuss these matter directly with you.

All are way overdue (by many many years) for resolution.

 

Note: I have made writen representation of the above topics, where appropriate to RAA, CASA, NAIPS, The Minister & AA

 

😈

[ShawnD]

52 minutes ago, Reynard said:

Well Shawn, you’ve boldly entered the lions den here - but welcome anyway !

 

What I routinely hear around the hangar is ‘where is the value for money in being an RAAus member (other than a small amount of insurance coverage)?’…..There is a significant annual membership and registration cost compared to GA and other self-administering organisations.

In a related vein, what will turn the membership decline around ? What is the compelling reason to become an RAAus member, compared to other options ?

Thanks Reynard. No problem with that. I'll learn a lot more in the lions den than outside of it. Thank you for the insight. 

[ShawnD]

13 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Welcome Shawn,

 

I applaud your initiative in connecting with this Forum - Could be a first.

 

For myself - I want to see RAA assertively advocate on the members behalf, for such simple things as;

• RAA represented on or at least to, the Australian Airports Association (AAA),
• To make the case for, preferably no Landing Fees for RAA class aircraft. If nil not possible, at least minimal, in recognition of our light weight (almost no impact on infrastructure).
• Standardisation of Landing Fees ie the same fee for the same aircraft, no matter the airfield.
• All regional airfields, Landing Fees posted in ERSA.
• Overturning that part of CASA Part 61 that does not recognise RAA registered aircraft, as aircraft,  such that a  (CASA) GA Instructor cannot conduct a Flight Review (BFR) for a CASA Licensed Pilot (PPL) in an RAA registered aircraft - bureaucratic nonsense.
• The removal of the requirement for Australian private pilots (RAA & others) to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) for access to most small Regional Security Controlled airports - nil security benefit, just an added pilots cost for no demonstrable gain (essentially a charge nor no service).
• RAA post regular updates on their advocacy - The topic, how it's going  (progressing or not) how the membership may be able to help expedite the process.

You will find most of the arguments on the above in this Forum. Should you prefer, I am more than happy to discuss these matter directly with you.

All are way overdue (by many many years) for resolution.

 

Note: I have made writen representation of the above topics, where appropriate to RAA, CASA, NAIPS, The Minister & AA

 

😈

SkippyDiesel, thanks for taking the time to type that out, that's a great head-start for me.
All of those make sense to me, I understand what you're saying. As merely a member myself I have only the public documents available to me, so at current I have only limited idea how RAAus is progressing with these initiatives, but certainly they're worth raising (perhaps again).

Between tonight and tomorrow night, I'll have limited capacity for a call, but I'm always available directly on messenger if that helps; (3) Facebook, or LinkedIn Shawn Donaldson | LinkedIn

[BurnieM]

20 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Welcome Shawn,

• Overturning that part of CASA Part 61 that does not recognise RAA registered aircraft, as aircraft,  such that a  (CASA) GA Instructor cannot conduct a Flight Review (BFR) for a CASA Licensed Pilot (PPL) in an RAA registered aircraft - bureaucratic nonsense.

😈

I understand were you are coming from Skip but this is extremely complicated.

I recommend that nobody on the RAAus board should be advocating for this as the simplest way to achieve this is to wipe out RAAus registered planes and pilots (and RAAus).

 

[skippydiesel]

10 hours ago, BurnieM said:

I understand were you are coming from Skip but this is extremely complicated.

I recommend that nobody on the RAAus board should be advocating for this as the simplest way to achieve this is to wipe out RAAus registered planes and pilots (and RAAus).

 

No offense Shawn but the complication is an entirely artificial construct ie has no practical foundation - its a rule, for the sake of a rule, that may have had a shred of legitimacy when RAA aircraft were all rag & tube & few of its pilots had duel RAA Cert / PPL, as many do now. 

 

RAA's existence as a separate entity (to CASA) is tenuous at best. If you have aircraft & pilots operating in the same airspace, to the same rules/standards, the existence of a separate (to CASA) body administering to a relativly small group, whose licensing conditions & benefits, are no longer so diffrent to GA, what is the point?

 

For all practical argument, the line between RAA & CASA pilots/aircraft, is now blurred to the point of only being in existence due to Part 61 (an illusion) and the tenacity of RAA (delusion?).

 

If RAA is to continue, it needs to offer clear benefits (over GA) to its members AND must be seen to vigorously advocate on our behalf. To date RAA seems mostly concerned with such questionable grandiose schemes as the Group G initiative (pretty much nullified by changes to GA medical requirements), while ignoring every day irritations like those I articulated above.

 

😈

 

 

 

 

[ShawnD]

57 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

No offense Shawn but the complication is an entirely artificial construct ie has no practical foundation - its a rule, for the sake of a rule, that may have had a shred of legitimacy when RAA aircraft were all rag & tube & few of its pilots had duel RAA Cert / PPL, as many do now. 

 

RAA's existence as a separate entity (to CASA) is tenuous at best. If you have aircraft & pilots operating in the same airspace, to the same rules/standards, the existence of a separate (to CASA) body administering to a relativly small group, whose licensing conditions & benefits, are no longer so diffrent to GA, what is the point?

 

For all practical argument, the line between RAA & CASA pilots/aircraft, is now blurred to the point of only being in existence due to Part 61 (an illusion) and the tenacity of RAA (delusion?).

 

If RAA is to continue, it needs to offer clear benefits (over GA) to its members AND must be seen to vigorously advocate on our behalf. To date RAA seems mostly concerned with such questionable grandiose schemes as the Group G initiative (pretty much nullified by changes to GA medical requirements), while ignoring every day irritations like those I articulated above.

 

😈

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your view SkippyDiesel, but that wasn't me who said it was complicated, that was BurnieM.

I'm listening to all views and have no formed opinion as yet.