turboplanner

CASA's main aim is to protect ITSELF from threat of litigation. That's why it employs so many lawyers. Nev

How many of the 1,000 employees are lawyers?

 

 

Turbs, why does the existence of CASA protect anyone from litigation? I can imagine that between the RAAus and its insurers, some sort of SMS would be in place anyway.

That's been my point Bruce;any issue of the cost of building and maintaining a safety, compliance and enforcement system belongs th the self administering body and their performance is reflected in the insurance premium cost.

 

 

Bill,Your assessment of the cost-shifting activities of CASA is pretty close to the mark. As you may know, RAAus has a one-sided Deed forced on it by CASA that includes an obligation for RAAus to have an SMS. The Deed includes a very nominal payment by CASA to RAAus. This is a matter of great concern to past and current Boards. You must remember who the 400kg gorilla is in this deal. It is stating the bleeding obvious that CASA has the legal power to do just about anything they fancy. For the Deed to be a fair and balanced contract the payment from CASA would be $millions not approx $100k.

The safety manager we have is outstanding and is doing a very good job. She acts as CEO in his absence. Compare her to Myles and we are into chalk and cheese territory.

 

One thing that may not be apparent is that at one stage CASA wanted each flying school/club to have its own SMS. That is now improved to be an over-arching SMS for all of RAAus.

 

Don

Interesting that you pitch a tale of the 400 kg gorilla, and the "one-sided Deed"; when you were a board member you just ignored the deed; so that it just so much hot air.

 

If the obligation is difficult for you to understand, just imagine if CASA was taken out of the picture; if the Federal Government just listened to the chorus of magpies who said CASA wasn't working, looked at the annual cost of running an operation with 1,000 bureaucrats, and decided the people of Australia would be better off if that money was spent on developing solar power.

 

Then you wouldn't have a gorilla on your shoulders; we would all, from Qantas down, be flying in accordance to the new Civil Aviation Act, and we would all be responsible for our own safety.

 

If we went to the government and said "What are the rules, who's going to pay for all this now?" they would simply say "You're in charge, work it out"

 

That's the situation with hundreds of thousands of corporations just like RAA Limited in Australia today.

 

There's no Big Gorilla running around the Bowen Basin telling mining companies they have to have an SMS; there's no Big Gorilla telling thousands of sporting associations they have to have an SMS.

 

Those Associations do it themselves, and then operate with a volunteer force.

 

I've been through every stage I've outlined here, with the exception of the example of the government dropping CASA; the equivalent of that happened in Victoria where the government set up the Transport Regulation Board which had total control of commercial vehicles and buses, and allowed certain types of vehicles to operate just like CASA does with RA; and the TRB expanded and changed the rules, just like CASA does, and extended that to specify territories where commercial vehicles could operate, just like CASA, and vehicles had to be built and maintained to TRB regulations, just like CASA. And one day the TRB was gone and their multi-story buildings are now units for the yuppies of Carlton.

 

So imagine if CASA was taken out of the picture; you would be in exactly the same position as all those other sporting bodies; but when the plaintiff slapped you with a $16 million claim, the only defence you'd have is "The safety manager we had was outstanding and was doing a very good job. She acted as CEO in his absence. When we compared her to Myles we were into chalk and cheese territory."

 

With bodies on the ground, that's not such a great defence.

 

 

Turbs, I don't argue there shouldn't be an SMS in place, I have issue with us having to pay for it. We are depleting our reserves keeping up with CASA's demands and constantly on our toes waiting for the next urgent issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile CASA conveniently side step any responsibility by making individual organisations accountable for producing their own version of an SMS.

The SMS is RAA Ltd's demonstration of its duty of care umbrella. The primary battle will be between you and RAA Ltd vs the person you just hurt. RAA Ltd has to pay for its SMS the same as any other company. The government doesn't pay to develop the system or train the employees/participants.

 

In a company situation, a customer company may require, in the contract, that the supplier have an SMS in place and certain insurances before the contract is signed. I've signed quite a few. CASA sits in much the same place as the customer.

 

Having said that, the last time I looked at the RAA SMS it was a very simple document.

 

 

I do believe that a poster on a car forum who favoured Ford over Holden or via versa, would not be told to F off

LOL there would be few more expletives used!

Best to wait for the picture to unfold.

 

 

It was this appointment that was alleged as nepotistic and and failed to follow due process. It was also alleged the appointment was inappropriate because Myles had no experience in setting up SMSs.In fairness to Ed at the time he was was acting out of the failure of RAAus to set up a SMS as required by the CASA agreement. His error was perhaps to have appointed Myles without a proper advertising and selection program. Ed was under considerable time constraints at the time because of what previous RAAus management had failed to do.

There is a long thread on it somewhere but I was told Myles worked in the mining industry and had experience with SMS.

However, one thing we can all be sure on; if Myles had been appointed safety manager he wouldn't have sent a list of engine failures to CASA which included fuel exhaustions and flat tyres.

 

 

I fail to understand why RAA has to spend it's money on an SMS and employ a safety officer. Surely this is the role of CASA. It is easy to understand why membership and registration costs keep rising when CASA up the ante on what it expects RAA to do on finite resources. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.Why should we pay for and perform their functions that they are handsomely funded to do. Have CASA got an SMS in place for GA and if so who pays?.

RAA management should be fighting these impositions on our funds and making CASA fund their own wish list.

 

The rhetoric coming from the CEO seems to be acquiescent to all that CASA ask for, he needs to be told that we are his major stakeholders and employers - not CASA. I'm majorly disappointed in his performance ever since the Jabiru vendetta began and now that they are trying (or being told to) to take over all categories of recreational aircraft. If you can't make a go with 8500 members you wil never be successful. They are trying to do too much with too little to appease CASA. Costs to RAA membership cannot keep rising to fund someone else's role - leave us alone !!.

RAA is a self administering organisation Bill; it is responsible for its own safety, and the big issue is why there wasn't an SMS in place for a start. In a lawsuit, the claimant's lawyers are going to ask what regime is in place to supervise the activities and ensure safe operations. Without an SMs you are left with your thumb in your mouth.

 

 

I'm not aware of the internal workings of this emerging new group, and have already been critical of the poor standard of communication.

 

I'm also not aware of exactly what caused them to think they could do a better job.

 

However, memories are very short here, and I'm seeing no mention of the pilloring Myles Breitkruze received when he was given the job of setting up an SMS, and the sprays that ex-Board Membert Ed Herring received when he supported him.

 

Perhaps that was the start of it all.

 

 

Geoff, did the tinnitus come from trucking?

 

 

I first joined AUF in 1988 so I have a long history with it, it allows me to do what I want to do. In that time I have flown Thrusters, Gazelles, Tecnams and Pioneers.If a new body is to be successful it will surely need to attract the support of sports pilots. If I am considered to be a potential member of this new organization I will need to be convinced that it will be better for me and for sports aviation generally.

Good point

 

I don't even know who I am addressing here. Who is ELAAA? The first I knew of this was a cryptic posting of a company registration certificate, no explanation (and not even posted the right way up). I gather from a couple of the comments that some people were in the know.

They may not be fully set up and ready to communicate yet, although a Limited company structure tells me they have little long term hope of survival with the limited money supply in what is essentially a hobby industry.

 

Was post #41 the official announcement of this new venture, if so it was poorly done. Is there a web site? I do see that there is a FB page although I discovered this by accident.

Agree

 

I understand from post #108 that the manuals have been written and approved by CASA. When do potential members get to give their input? Wasn't RAUS heavily criticised for submitting it's manuals to CASA without getting input from it's members? When do potential members get to see the manuals.

Very good point; why would you leave Big RAA, to join Little RAA? However, you do have the opportunity to inspect the finished manuals and decide whether to have anything to do with them; that's a plus.

The heavy criticism of RAA would apply equally to anyone else doing the same things.

 

Who is the CEO?

Don't need one; who would clone what there is now?

 

Will this new body only be for rag and tube or all aircraft that I can fly under RAAUS? I want to fly fast and high AND low and slow.

Certainly what is needed is a layered body with layered cost levels.

 

I am concerned that we could end up with two weak organisations instead of one strong organisation.

I would suggest that in discussing this, people are going to take a wider look at how Self Administration should work.

If, as someone suggested,

 

RAA has managed to chew through two thirds of its considerable assets; then as a Limited company, to survive, it has to do one of two things (or a bit of both)

 

1. Slash costs very substantially and fast

 

2. Increase income very substantially and fast.

 

There's no reason why this shouldn't occur and the company move forward on a very sound basis; plenty of people in the community pay $2000.00 to $5,000.00 a year for golf club memberships.

 

This other Limited company has to climb the mountain from zero; a massive task.

 

In both these cases, I've yet to see SMS, and Compliance and Enforcement structures operating on the ground, and that involves emplying hundreds of people.

 

What I would suggest is that the minute annual subscriptions start to climb, appathy will turn into action, so I can forsee a third body developing as an Incorporated Association with volunteer SMS and Compliance and Enforcement operations, in much the same way as hundreds of other bodies self administer their sports.

 

Will this kind of split be reflected in this forum? If this forum becomes anti RAAUS and pro ELAAA then I don't see the point in me being here and I would suggest others may feel the same.

Believe it or not, most people over the last few years have beeb raising genuine concerns; that is masked by some of the resident parrots, and I'd suggest there will always be splits. Already you can see that ELAAA are copping it too.

 

My negativity is more along the lines of healthy scepticism. Any new body will survive or fail on what it has to offer it's members

Any new body needs to heed your message.

 

A new body will have to ensure that it does not do those things that it criticizes RAAUS for doing.

If the above rumours are true, that has already started, so unless the reports are wrong, or there is a dramatic U turn, the result will be as you suggest.

 

 

I don't understand why as far as I can see the identity of the CEO is not public knowledge.

They don't have to have a CEO, they can have a managing director and eliminate one expensive ladder rung.

What's happened today sounds more like a leak to me; but nevertheless it looks like the organisation doesn't have much in the way of communicating skills.

 

 

And, of course, with ASIC everything is secret unless you pay them money. With the proposed privatisation (moneterisation) of the ASIC Registry function you can be assured that it will get worse.This is tax, taxation, T.A.X. by any other name, so favoured by government on the right

Which post are you replying to Col.

 

 

Quirindi was one of several locations where a similar school was to be developed. What benefits for locals? Pretty much like giving transnational corporations your mineral, gas and oil deposits. A few locals with the right qualifications get work. Political parties get useful donations, perhaps a retiring minister is employed as a highly paid "consultant". Tax holidays and transfer pricing mean the best of use are taken for a ride.

They would have no idea what it was.

 

 

in the back of my mind has been the thought that splitting the responsibilities for ultralight aircraft between two organisations potentially defeats the economy of scale currently enjoyed by RAAus.I wonder if this new group has negotiated support from the SAAA owners to improve its base? If it has, that moves it even further away from the basic R&T brigade's aspirations.

Kaz

I don't think you have to worry too much Kaz.

 

 

FH is referring to the notice required for Constitutional change - not general questions that may arise in a general meeting. An AGM has a required agenda and it is quite usual that an AGM is immediately followed by a GM in which general questions may be aired. Nothing new, radical, or in any way unusual there. The AGM must meet specific reporting requirements; the segue from that to a GM is an efficient way to ensure that 'general business' can be handled at the least incremental cost to the organisation. That segue is an effective way to rule a line under the organisation having met its legal obligations for reporting as required at the AGM, to discussing matters of concern to its members.

The RAA Ltd constitution is on the RAA Ltd Website. If you take a look at General Meetings, from clause 18 to clause 33.1, unless I missed something, there is no provision for the ad hoc General Business segment that most of us would have grown up with; there are requirements for pre-announcements of the business to be raised in all the types of General Meetings. I did skim through it quickly, I admit, but if this is correct then if something comes up during the AGM/reports or during the General Meeting, anjd you want to move a motion, you're stuffed. While a lot of organisation chairpersons may weigh up the issues and allow a motion the problem is that with this constitution, if the motion goes through and someone takes it to court, the resolution is automatically disqualified, because the constitution doesn't make provision for it.

 

Management of the RAA under the 'old Constitution'; and by 'the old guard', had led to the utter debacle of the CASA audit and of course the Emergency GM at Queanbeyan. Plus the questionable employment of Tizzard to complete certain documentation (at a high cost, and never completed), and the Myles Breitkreutz saga... Altogether a clusterfarqh.

Just a few days ago, I pointed out that this "old guard" reference was a long way down the track from the exciting days when everything in RAA worked. You're in fact referring to a "new guard", and before that era there was the appointment of another CEO which was a very sore point, and other issues within the employees. The seeds of the CASA audit were well and truly sown by the time you are referring to, and the board members themselves should have been complying with job descriptions issued by CASA in 2010. There certainly were major issues, but we had been discussing those a long time before the General Meeting in Queanbeyan. As we know, by the time the supposed "new guard" got to Queanbeyan, they had been rounded up by proxies, and knew they were beaten. While there were some motions passed, all were unlawful because they were voted on by a combined member and non-member group. Some good did come out of the meeting.

 

One of the most tried and proven adages is: ' If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, here's a newsflash for those who are so stridently opposing the changes: it WAS broken, by any objective measure - and the best objective measure of that was the fact that so many aircraft were grounded as non-compliant with the basic regulations. There is no MORE objective measure than - if you are a member of an organisation so that you can legally fly your aircraft and that organisation has failed to meet that standard of performance - your membership is useless.

There are lots more objective measures, but I'll leave you with one; the need to protect the rag and tube origins of RAA.

 

The incontrovertible metric of 'member concern' over such matters as 'regional representation', or the quality/cost/delivery mechanism of Sport Pilot etc. lies in the voting figures. I do not recall there every being figures that support the idea that even 10% of the RAA membership gives a continental, fur-lined flying faark about all of these peripheral issues; I deduce that 90% of members simply want to pay their dues and receive in return, legal coverage for their flying. A group discount (and simplicity) of enrollment in an insurance coverage for their 3rd-party liability is a bonus.

There are many more issues than these raised on this forum, and probably more again around the clubs form time to time; are you saying it's naghty to have discussions on these things?

 

Following the 'Emergency Meeting' at Queanbeyan, members voted for change. They have voted for the version of change that we now see starting to actually happen.

As I mentioned, there was a lot more history than you are apparently aware of; but yes, following that meeting changes occurred and voting occurred, and certain things have started to happen.

 

However, some people, disappointed that their desired version of change has not been accepted by the majority, are fighting tooth and claw to dismantle it. This smacks of disappointed political ambition for power within RAA to pursue their vision of RAA's future. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some have commercial interests in supporting alternatives to RAA as a service provider. That may become more obvious as events unfold.Since the 'new' RAA has hardly had time to draw breath, the opposition to it cannot be based on experience of failure to deliver. Loudly expressed opinions that it WILL fail to deliver, are no more - at this stage - than opinions, which (as another aphorism has it), are as common as cloacas - everybody has one. And the E & LAAA 'alternative' - yet to emerge as a properly-constituted organisation with the necessary expertise and procedural manuals in place to support its operation - seems to me to be a chimera which has more 'A's' than might be useful..

I assume this is a positioning statement.

 

 

DWF..Thank you for finding that, good to know.KP .

It was good of him to post that informnation, but it came straight from your Constitution which is posted on the RAA website.

You really need to read that document, and then you can decide whether the members get a fair go on the day o/f the AGM; for example have a look at the options for a general meeting after the AGM, and the possibility of raising, on the day, something as general business.

 

FH, you also don't seem to be addressing routine general business either. If an organisation has to go from one year to the next with 21 days notice required to discuss anything, that's a dysfunctional organisation.

 

 

I would like to think that all dealings by the RAAus would be courteously done. If we get a bad name In this industry they can all just walk away. We aren't big enough to matter and are a hard to define risk. I wouldn't seriously think in this world you can be uninsured and if it's ok for you is it oK if everyone doesn't do it? Crook insurance companies should not be allowed to be in the game. More the reason to be careful who you deal with and have a good relationship with them. Nev

Who's to say the change was not courteusly done? The official communications level is hopless, but that's been the case for a long time.

 

 

In regard to the earlier suggestions that competition can only be good for flyers, that old furphy only applies in situations where a company has been making excess profits.

 

A Limited Company which is not making a profit is only going one way and that's out of business.

 

A Limited Company which is started without the momentum of brand value, or a clear marketing policy is going to struggle to get off the ground.

 

Put those two head to head in competition, and it's not going to be good for anyone, because the "savings" were mythical in the first place.

 

 

They need a section of, questions with out notice, if that is not the case, well the meeting will be a waste of time. When there is a fudged answer no one can pursue the fudge, they get away with their fibs. If they are honest the questions from the floor would be welcomed not "Shut Down".KP

Normal democratic procedure is that the AGM only consist of reports from officers and other procedural items, any election procedures and then a close, followed by a Generasl Meeting where any member can ask any question, or put any motion.

Check your new RAA Ltd Constitution to see what the new procedure is.

 

There is no need for a section entitled "Questions without Notice" because, apart from those words creating the opportunity for baseless antagonism, you should be free to ask or report anything in a General Meeting, and if you are not, then you have a due press problem which can be fixed.

 

On my reading of the Constitution, it is about what you would expect of a local cricket club, and that has as many advantages to members as it does to officials who may be leaning towards doing their own thing.

 

If there is a fudged answer, you can move a motion to address that; even shareholders in a limited company can pull the Directors smartly into shape if they are prepared to.

 

 

Good submission Bruce.

 

 

A few weeks ago I was established in a cruise with ideal VFR conditions, and OzRunways showed a "target" 500 feet below on an oncoming 45 degree intersecting path some 5 miles away. I decided to test my see-and-avoid capability & deliberately watched the area with visual scanning technique etc. I was astonished that even with this intense vigilance on the area, the "target" aircraft was nearly 30 seconds away before I saw it against the terrain below. It crossed directly underneath me. I consider my vision to be very good (and it tests this way too). Who knows what other traffic I've missed seeing over the years with less intense vigilance?? Human vision is well known to be imperfect!30 seconds isn't much time if one has a tendency for too much "head-in-the-cockpit"... (definitely not recommended as we all know). Perhaps an affordable TCAS system is truly the best solution for our modern GPS & ADS-B equipped sky?

That was a great exercise to show how hard an aircraft is to see when it's below you; unless he/she has used a radio, or electronics are involved, you really don't know what you haven't seen.

 

A practical disprover of Bruce's academic calculation is the airfield training area.

 

With city airports such as Archerfield, Bankstown, Moorabbin, Parafield, Jandakot, you are effectively flying through a multilayered ants nest with aircraft and helicopters of all types flying in all directions at all levels.

 

Every one of those aircraft in the training area "box" will have a degree of difficulty seeing some of the aircraft below a lot of the time, and some of the aircraft above, behind, and at rear angles to the side.

 

So the risk will increase dramatically if you spend a lot of time in the training area.

 

Living underneath the Moorabbin TA, I see near misses (not necessarily dangerous ones) where as many as three aircraft converge and pass within a hundred metres of each other, with no banking, or course correction indicating they saw each other at the last minute.

 

At those airfields the training has always been very strong on eyeballing as much sky as you can before you do everything, and that has worked very well for decades.

 

 

Sorry maaate, Runciman wasn't the problem, he was a desperate attempt to be a solution. The wheels started falling off the plane when Eugene Reid was in the chair. If Reid had not been replaced by Runciman god knows where we would be except broke and out of business. How Reid got back on the board is beyond me. Democracy sucks (at times)!!!

In recent times there has been an unfortunate focus, probably for propaganda purposes, on a very narrow segment of RAA history to paint some good guys vs some bad guys.

 

You're correct that Runciman, painted as one of the bad guys, wasn't the problem, albeit I wouldn't say he was the best communicator in the world, and I wouldn't say the executive of that time were headed in the right direction towards putting the fires out, but those fires, including what led to the Audits, were ablaze for years before Runciman and Co came on the scene.

 

You can't totally blame Eugene either; there was a situation there which had been orchestrated many years before, and you can see the fingerprints of that orchestration in the early copies of the RAA constitution.

 

If you argue he was too hands off, you have to look at what would have happened, under the structure of the day if he'd tried to be hands on.

 

If you start to go back a little bit, and most of it is on ths forum, take a look at this:

 

New RA-Aus President named!

 

The person I would like to talk to about the difficulties in managing the Association immediately before 2008 is John Gardon; from reading this he was struggling as President, and probably due to the apathy of the general members, appears to have been rounded up by others, who continued on their way in the lead up to the period which has been discussed in this thread.

 

John has made some very intelligent and meaningful posts on this forum, and it's a pity he seems to have been driven out.

 

 

It needs a fix, or the non-option deleted, because the likes are way too close together on an Iphone, and accidental "like" have been applied often.

 

 

Good point but comparing cars and planes in this manner is a bit apples and oranges ...Potentially there's an absolutely immense benefit to be gained from series hybrid application in aircraft. The big thing about planes is that we're forced to cart around a big engine the whole time when it's only actually needed for a tiny percentage of the time i.e. for the take-off and initial climb. The rest of the time it's an inefficient heavy-weight gas-guzzler operating well below its best torque.

I agree it's appples and oranges, but is there a light aircraft system in production now?

 

If not, I can't see the volume/profitability equation allowing an internal combustion hybrid to be developed because of cost, even if someone could resolve the additional weight and complexity issues.

 

The hybrid I can see though is the Solar/Electric combination, with that huge upper surface availability.

 

There's very little production development in this field either, but a pointer to what might be achieved here is the Darwin-Adelaide Solar Race.

 

This started with flat streamliner cars, most breaking new ground to achive the distance from Darwin to Adelaide at moderate speeds.

 

After a few years they were all making Adelaide with a few achieving bursts of 100 km/hr

 

Then the streamlines all had to be limited to the NT 130 km/hr speed limit which they were able to cruise at (and break)

 

Then the rules were changed requiring the drivers to sit upright in a conventional driving condition for more frontal area, and they still were able to cruise at 100 km/hr

 

So there's a lot of potential power available from the solar cells and circuitry those guys use, which powers electric motors.

 

Add batteries to that and you have a system with the redundancy we would need.

 

However, before getting too excited, take a look at the circuitry required; and then think about the development costs.

 

World Solar Challenge 2017

 

 

Agree, straight electric will be the way to go, you only have to look at the transformation of RC to see the advantages.

 

In which case we will be looking at a far lighter empty weight anyway.