turboplanner

5 hours ago, coljones said:

I don't see the problem with properly informed proxies beating the privileged voters in the room. And motions from the floor discriminate against proxy givers.

OK, but with uninformed proxies gathered for a stack if needed, a result can be the opposite of good governance.

Proxies are usually reserved for voting on known events, e.g. elections at AGMs or Extraordinary General Meetings where there is an advertised decision to make, and Members can't be there, or where the Constitution specifies.

General meetings are just that. If you show up, you're part of the vote; if you don't you accept the decisions made at the meeting.

This takes a load off Committee Meetings which is usually where the members shove the hard work.

General Business can often have around a dozen items.

Where there's a very active President or Committee acting in the best interests of the group, listing proposed decisions, all researched, all checked and ready to go in General Business it allows members to have a say and be part of the decision. It's not unusual for 10  resolutions to rattle though and be processed under 30 minutes unless there's some controversy.

42 minutes ago, coljones said:

It is quite easy to stack a meeting - the youth wings of the ALP, Liberal Party and Country Party are experts.

 

In a national organisation like ours proxies are the only way to maintain democracy.

Meetings can be stacked by people or by proxies. If you go back to the last Extraordinary Meeting, proxies best the vote in the room. So you need a Constitution which prevents proxies in general meetings.

As I explained, act of God is a formal insurance term; the person I was addressing has the chance to get an answer to his question.

25 minutes ago, facthunter said:

And do you reckon "ACT of God" should be a serious concept when you are paying for "loss and Damage" cover?  Nev

It is a formal Insurance term.

Ok, I'm out of it; you provide the answers.

I'm sure the comedians will find some applause somewhere, but a serious question was asked.

1 hour ago, coljones said:

Nah, raising stuff from the floor without prior notice prevents those not in the know having a voice and a vote.  The proper way to deal with floor matters is for members to raise the issues and the meeting can discuss, the board can then take the issue on board for possible resolution. If it is not resolved to the members are entitled to bring the matter back to an AGM or GM with due notice and then the attendees and potential proxies can take an informed decision.  

The reason for allowing the corporations law to have an impact on motions at a meeting is that there may be issues under corporation law where a particular resolution must, may or may not be moved or carried. I'm not a great fan of the corporations law as it forced companies and their members into the claws of lawyers and whackjobs at ACCC and ASIC. But on the other hand it attempts to keep everyone honest (but fails miserably in the case of big business and the NSW Club industry). It appears that the behaviour of the RAAus Board was to prevent gaming of the system - NRMA was pretty good at that.

That gets you what you've got now - just goes around in a circle.

If you don't have a General Business section in a meeting, the members lose a lot of control on fast moving issues.

Proxies should not be used as weapons; if there is a quorum at the meeting you can get a decision on the day instead of things dragging out for months. Where you have to forecast a routine business item, you can be beaten by proxies every time, so you don't have a democratic association.

1 minute ago, BurnieM said:

Two points;

 

I have never received complete or relevant information from a company in receivership. Never.

 

Interesting that Sling Aircraft are addressing their recent massively increased demand by expanding their in house manufacturing facilities.  Yes they are a smaller company but appear to have a more strategic management. Not saying they are perfect.

A company in receivership which is shat we have in Australia has gone belly up, fininshed, doors closed, everyone sacked and in an instant is controlled by a Receiver who will make the decisions on getting the creditors their best outcome which is why you don't get information. Mostly there are auctions where various assets are sold. Sometimes the Receiver will decide to trade on in the hope of selling it as a going concern and you will then get information from the Receiver and his staff, and anyone he employs.

On 16/12/2023 at 8:48 AM, FlyingVizsla said:

The Communique says - Today sees the conclusion of the 2023 Annual General Meeting. In summary, a Board resolution (Resolution 4) that sought to make some updates to the constitution was withdrawn by the Board due to concerns about administrative procedures that may have affected our ability to conduct a fair and reasonable process. Member Rodney Birrell had also put forward a resolution (Resolution 5) to make changes to the constitution and was offered the opportunity to withdraw the resolution for the same reasons. He chose not to do this and after being put to members the resolution did not reach the required majority of 75% and therefore was not passed.

 

I would like to know what the "administrative procedures" were that failed the membership.  I guess it was with Proxy Votes, or maybe the communication of the Resolutions?

Both the No Confidence and the Administrative Procedures have unnecessarily cost RAAus and therefore members.

 

I would think it's also a concern that some members are reporting on here that they've been given new numbers for  the proposed Group G

Has CASA now approved Group G?

What would be the impact on Members if Group G was approved and people who couldn't meet the GA medical standard flowed into RAA Ltd for a lower standard and started making demands to get the same flying priviledges as they had in GA? etc.

What other flow on effects could occur.

These would normally be discussed in general meetings, and in some cases rules changed and others new conditions applied, and for that you ideally need open meetings taking as long as it takes to ensure the changes don't compromise the flying of the existing members and the structure of the organisation with new negative impacts.

I looked at the RAA Ltd Constitution. If you remember the change was done in a hurry, and it's not ideal for things like no confidence motions and urgent Member resolutions.   

Clause 19 discusses calls for General Meetings by Members.

Clause 27 refers to Members resolutions and statements

  27.1 to 27.5 cover the process. In my opinion the current clauses work against the Members and make if very difficult for a Member to get something fixed.

Clause 27.6 says "This Clause does not limit the right that a member has to propose a resolution at a general meeting under the Corporations Act."

               (Under Clause 65, Corporations Act means the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).                       http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/

This is a big document to wade through.

To participate in these decisions, you really need to get to the ability to ensure there is a General Business section in every General Meeting, and each Member in attendance has the right to raise without notice an issue in General Business, explain the contents and move a resolution to be voted on by the quorum present.

4 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

I was wrong about the US$1billion bailout. The bailout was $US85 BILLION shared between GM and Chrysler & then the US Treasury became the biggest shareholder of GM. GM sold a lot of its subsidiaries (Opel, Vauxhall etc) closed others like Holden & Chrysler & it's Fiat partner went on to eventually be swallowed by Stellantis now based in Amsterdam..

 

Neither company should have survived. They had become fat and lazy and were producing the same old stuff while Japanese car makers were producing vehicles that actually sold and the made a profit. GM though has morphed back in to what it was using its size & (too big to fail mantra) to try and bully the government in to letting them continue to produce stuff that the planet cannot sustain.

 

VANS on the other hand is a miniature by comparison and their products are good. They just failed to keep up with changing market conditions and rising costs and continued to make bad decisions till eventually filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. If VANS does survive it will be a very different organisation to what it is now.

Is it so hard to understand what "example" means without getting lost in a witch hunt.

There are people here who bought the Van's product, need Van's Spares and probably others who want to buy the product.

The examples simply show that under Chapter 11 reconstruction can take place.

23 minutes ago, derekliston said:

That makes me wonder whether, if the airfield operators are deemed responsible for the cable breaking, they will completely remove the cables and leave the responsibility to owners to use ground screws or whatever for their tie downs?

Chyeck whether the insurance excludes an "act of God"

........who pushed back shoving OT into ............................

US Chapter 11 allows breathing space for a Company to find a way forward from a difficult time.

It's not the Australian Receivership wind up, but a bit like our putting the Company under Administration with a Scheme of Arrangement.

Here are a couple of Chapter 11 examples.
 

General Motors went for Chapter 11 in 2009

It was rejuvenated and a new GM bought out the old GM.

Most members of the public would be reading this for the first time.

Chapter 11 allows an organization to find its way back to profitability.

Sometimes financial problems are solved by evolution.

Cyrus McCormick invented the Reaper in 1831; before that farmers and their employees had to walk through fields cutting the wheat, oat and barley stalks by hand.

For those on the land, he was the person who invented those triangular blades rivetted to a strip which slid between guards – the blades which seemed to find every rock in the paddock.

Not all seasons were good and although by 1902 Cyrus was exporting his reapers in the thousands all over the world the industry was in disaster mode. He solved it by merging with his competitors, Deering Harvester Co and three others, forming the International Harvester Company.

Industrial Designer Raymond Loewy, designed the Coke bottle and the Studebaker car with the flat boot. (it stood out so much that people said you couldn’t tell which way it was pointing when it was coming towards you.)

He also design the IH logo which went on, like the coke bottle to be worth millions.

In 1981 following a crippling strike in 1979, International Harvester was possibly the first company to transition to build vehicles using robotics. When a recession hit, IHC also discovered you can’t lay off robots; you had to keep paying the loans and went for Chapter 11.

They renamed the Company “Navistar” and opted to come out of Chapter 11 with just the core products of trucks and school buses. They retained the Truck name “International”.

They sold the IH logo, Construction Equipment (bulldozers etc), Tractors and Implements to Case, which rebranded itself Case IH and changed its colours from yellow to red.

This allowed people in the three different industries to keep on buying the products they wanted.

Today if you’re watching a movie and there’s a city scene, you’ll most likely be looking at an International truck or school bus.

A few days ago I passed a hugged CASEIH/Steiger Row Track tractor big enough to need a four axle Low Loader trailer pulled by a heavy truck.

Chapter 11 allowed that long term product evolution to continue for the past 42 years.

As for the Van’s Chapter 11:

I took part in the International Harvester Chapter 11 process.

Freed from the crippling debt, given time for the recession to end, we were able to heavily discount product to reduce a huge excess stock, spend a lot of time looking at core strengths and core products, and off-load non-performing areas. We had the money to step up advertising and the business went on, particularly where the customers came to us and asked us what was going on. We were free to tell them exactly what was happening in terms of sales service and parts.

So I’d add a caution to some of the comments above, and recommend anyone who is concerned, just contact Van’s and ask for regular updates. Then you’ll know what’s happening as against reading information which may or may not be correct or may or may not be out of date.

Remember, while they are under Chapter 11, they have the time to address some of the issues raised here.

I’m not saying they’ll come out of it; I’m not saying they won’t; I’m not saying their prices will go up; I’m not saying their prices will go down, I’m not saying their quality will change; I’m not saying their quality won’t, and they don’t have to advise every self-appointed expert on what their plans are; they still have competition.

........he/she would take part in the speech session.  (We thank Cappy for this video from his extensive library)

Normally the females would give a talk on "How to change a truck tyre" or "My time in the SAS" and the males would talk about "How embarrassing it was last Saturday night at the BoB", or "How to get a grease stain out of the carpet" (referring to the dog's last three pointer), and who could forget bull's "Making Scones when there's no water". The only jarring note in recent years was CT's "Popping Bunnies" which caused shrieks of outrage from the men.

This particular night at the Tasmanian School of Arts was going normally when OT arrived in a limousine dressed as Marilyn Monroe. He spent half an hour darting around the foyer looking for a puff of wind to blow his dress up, and then started a slow, suggestive walk (some said it was more sexy than Marilyn used to do) through the school, past the Life students, entwining himself around the model which on that night was a 40 year-Wharfie from Newcastle, while singing "Diamonds are a girl's best friend."

Social media went off the clock as the wharfies hoed into the LGBTAMS at their friend being demeaned by such a trashy performance, The Academy for the Arts sided with the LGs and added their own shrill voices, forty five people advised the readers this was due to global warming, and sixty two branded OT as unsustainable, but OT bravely continued his progress through the School singing which, although off-key and out of time was appreciated by many from the Art world.

Eventually, when looking back, he accidentally bumped into ........................

This relates to Figure 1 from the above ATSB report, but in no way suggests what happened. I just think the visual is a good example to discuss identifying where we are in the mountains and picking the right valley to get us home.

We know that the intent of the Pilot was to fly down the Pioneer Valley.

If he was flying VFR just before he started the turn to the left, he would have seen the road that runs into the Pioneer Valley, but not the river.

As he turns toward higher ground, he may have been searching for the Pioneer Valley higher up; he was about to make it with a downslope ahead of him.

When he crossed the highest peak line he was on track to intersect the Pioneer Valley; when he turned left he was flying away from it.

One question I have is what mapping he had on board at that moment (or what mapping WE might have had on board at that moment.

Was Ozrunways or WAC chart be detailed enough to show him he was on track to intersect the valley and then that he had turned away from the valley?

For VFR flying you have to be able to see 5 km ahead.

There's an old adage for bushwalkers: "If lost never walk down, the valleys keep multiplying as you go. Walk up; there is only one summmit.

In this case he was going down.

How easy or difficult was it flying this track VFR to be sure you were intersecting the Pioneer Valley?

What were the key markers of this particular valley?

Where would you flight plan to intersect the valley?

1 minute ago, Kiwi said:

Cable snapped.

Yes, just saw it on Channel 9 news.

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

It seems tying down your own aircraft is not enough these days.

My mistake. Channel 9 footage tonight shows the top aircraft from the other side with a tie down chain still firmly attached to a wing and the ground cable ripped out. Wind speed was 169 km/hr.

It seems tying down your own aircraft is not enough these days.

.....anyone dressed high heels and jeans would ............

1 hour ago, FlyingVizsla said:

It appears this is the case here - the motion of No Confidence was raised from the floor after the formal business of the AGM, which had to be adjourned while it was considered.  It was found to be invalid.

My question here is:

"had to be adjourned": Is there an adjournement process in the Constitution? was the there a motion to adjourn? if so was it seconded? If there are doubts here it may be that the adjournment was invalid and so falls away. Whan you act agains other people they have the right to be just as picky as you.

"considered": who considered it? was there a process in the Constitution to form a committee to "consider" matters? if so were the members who considered the matter formally authorised? If not there's a quastion about who they were and the validity of their decision. Remember that if you make a decision that's going to affect people they have the right to natural justice.

1 hour ago, FlyingVizsla said:

 

The RAAus Communique notes:  The disruptive behaviour by a minority of members has resulted in unnecessary and significant costs to members and is disappointing. 

 

If the action wasn't within the rules of the Constitution, then the "disruptive" action may not have been the correct description, and given that a single member can move a motion or query an action where the Constitution the term "minority of members" might just be wishful thinking.

1 hour ago, FlyingVizsla said:

The Communique says - Today sees the conclusion of the 2023 Annual General Meeting. In summary, a Board resolution (Resolution 4) that sought to make some updates to the constitution was withdrawn by the Board due to concerns about administrative procedures that may have affected our ability to conduct a fair and reasonable process. Member Rodney Birrell had also put forward a resolution (Resolution 5) to make changes to the constitution and was offered the opportunity to withdraw the resolution for the same reasons. He chose not to do this and after being put to members the resolution did not reach the required majority of 75% and therefore was not passed.

 

I would like to know what the "administrative procedures" were that failed the membership.  I guess it was with Proxy Votes, or maybe the communication of the Resolutions?

 

I would suggest someone go through all the points you raised matching them to the Constutution.

If the action was invalid, or worse, the members should do what they have to do.

.....what followed was forty minutes of waffle, all paid for by TCSC.

In fact Turbo had seen a similar thing this morning when to explain to truck drivers that they were dumb if they didn't know how to use a DPD button for a diesel particulate filter burn, the "stick it in 5 litres of diesel and light the bastard" method wasn't used. Instead a "Truckie", and effeminate actor who had let his beard grown for 3 days (or in his case more likely 6), jeans suit, elastic sided boots, explained with such a hopeless knowledge of diesel engines that it was hard to believe the manufacturer had been able to make the engine.

Turbo had immediately sent a memo to TCSC saying .............

54 minutes ago, KRviator said:

They do, but the point I was trying to make was if you change to RAAus, no matter what you fly, you have the benefit of the RAAus $20M liability insurance coverage, and so you can drop your own PL policy and save some $$ to offset the RAAus membership costs. I have full hull coverage so I don't know what a liability only policy would cost, but I would imagine it's more than a few hundred dollars, for $20M coverage.

Yes, it would be worthwile checking the clauses, what's included etc and costs beside each other.

..........started One Track Worm Farms Ltd.

A story, which couldn't be trusted because it was written by a journalist, headed Do Lions eat worms? 

posed the question of whether OT, now as famous as Alan Bond had touched gold again, or was just going to be another washed up Jeffrey Epstein groupie.

There were 2356 comments from the knowledgeable public, with quite a few asking "Who is Alan Bond?; is he the one that locked us down during covid? This sparked 7,234 replies  from which is was impossible to conclude who Alan Bond was.

A big man, wearing a big T shirt showing a 230 year old water wheel and the slogan "Lions can't rotate like Rotary!" featured in the next day's paper saying that Lions were wimps and never got anything finished and were responsible for the Commonwealt Games being cancelled and Dan was a Lion.

That's all the general public needed. They marched on Spring Street 2,000 strong, using the new "funeral" march stepping tempo which stretched a 15 minute demonstration into 3 hours.

The signs sent 2000 different messages, but the one the News media focused on was DAN IS A LION.

That's all the public needed to .......................

Going back over the past 15 years RAA members haven't had a good record of studying their Constitution  and following through with the correct procedure, which meant that even with good intent, actions which would have corrected of improved conditions failed on technicalities with the people trying to make things better leaving the sport. Or they couldn't keep their powder dry and were beating by proxy votes, which in some cases might have been disallowed.

Self Administering means administering of an organization by the members.

You can look at the 10,000 members and correctly say around 9900 have repeatedly ignored their duty to manage situtations which compromise their flying.

However, particularly within Incorporated Associations, that ratio is very common; it almost always occurs and the secret to success is to get as many members possible to vote in god and fair performers.

If you study some of the best, they are quick to offload any ego-driven self-centred people and keep the ones with drive who have the best interests of their Associations at heart. The result is that a small nucleus or even one person becomes the driving force and gets the things done that make the Association a great place to be, and the Association grows year after year. Those Associations don't have clauses in their constitutions requiring officials to leave after a certain time. (Well some do, when the Constitution is changed by ambitious but skill-less challengers, and the Association goes off a cliff.)

If people aren't happy with the way an Association is going they have to do a lot of groundwork behind the scenes instead of a lot of bleating to empty air.

18 hours ago, KRviator said:

There'd be some downsides I can see - namely the loss flight above 10,000 and at night if you currently do that.

One possible bonus may be the RAAus $20M liability cover, which might offset the membership costs, depending how much your current insurance premiums are - which I can see going up next time for those of us with RV's!

What would you say that?

If you're talking about public liability, from my perspective RV pilots have a good reputation for responsibility