turboplanner

Crikey TP... You got the craps or what?You know it was Ozzie's voice that first alerted me to the depth of the problem at Ra-Aus when he hit the stonewall when trying to re-rego his Lazair with its original numbers. That was what set me to sniffing about and when I realized that there may be some fishy business going on at Fyswick...

 

Just because someone doesn't run for the board or take on more responsibility is not a reason to attack their right as a $180 something dollars right to have a say and question...

 

I know myself personally would be happy to run as a Board Rep... BUT... I do not believe that I would offer value as a Rep so I won't put my hand up... This is not about individuals it is about our organization and every member being supported to have their say.. a LOT of what Ozzie says is spot on... of course it would be considering he has been flying Ultralights pretty much since they were invented.

 

Seriously TP... as a mate... and we have met... take a few breaths... I have noticed a few critical posts over the last few days... We need your level headed brain not your grumpy grandpa one... lol

Now is the time for Ozzie's wise voice to have plenty to say, to quieten down some of the chatter about forming Companies, alternative bodies, developing pie in the sky policies etc, none of which will put the fire out. I clearly haven't provoked him enough yet

I'm not asking members to stand for board positions, that's up to them, but every member needs to be thumping the table now, and 12,500 are not!

There's a saying in politics: "Never ask a question unless you know the answer". This poll is not going to reach about 12,500 people, so it will only be a sample of grounded planes from about 100 people, and will be wildly skewed towards "grounding? Not a problem!"

I understand where you're all coming from, but it's a little like standing on the deck of the Titanic and discussing the design of a better ship.

Depending how many aircraft are grounded now and will be grounded daily, and particularly how many importers will have to find hundreds of thousands of dollars to find unsaleable stock, and how many flying clubs will be grounded within the next month or so the logistics of getting into the air don't look good.

I really shouldn't object to you talking about it, but where I was coming from was that people are going to quickly change from "couldn't care less" to a critical mass which will very quickly force changes at RAA which will reverse the problems. Talking about another body will distract them, and may spoil the chances of fixing what's broke, as did the half dozen or so who threw spokes into the wheels whenever they could 18 months ago.

No FH, they should all be together and the classes should be what the diehards want. Aside from engineering it's not that hard, the other way is like saying all the women should be kicked out.

Hey there, anyone have their copy yet? Last month they updated the Members Market ahead of the magazine, but looks like that hasn't been done yet either. They did say no member's market for Jan 2013. i guess if the Mayans were right, what's the point??

You paid your $187.00 to cover staff and admin costs, but the board members only represent what you want, or should.

Ozzie has been crapping on about some number, or A Model Fords or something in four word sentences for years, but they ain't gunna bring back Prohibition, and he needs to spell out what today's RAA should be doing about hair dryer powered aircraft, or it'll get lost in a big LSA Tsunami.

A number of people have suggested the present issues were caused by rapid growth - BULLSH$T!!!

Please do not attempt to minimise the serious circumstances caused simply by failure to put management procedures in place and employ the appropriate people qualified to process the amount of work.

I have not read any criticism of the staff who process pilot renewals, only glowing reports of how helpful they are.

If we just look at the 3000 member increase from when we were discussing issues 18 months ago, that's an income increase of $561,000.00 which could progressively have been allocated to additional processing staff if that was the issue.

If that was the issue and the board of management had been open and transparent, volunteers cold quickly be drafted to identify the issues, and plan resolutions.

Please don't parrot garbage which just sounds good.

I think we are on to about 11 threads so far with everything being addressed except the key issues which are grounding aircraft right now.

I'm not surprised that many people are confused.

There may well be a time to talk about this, but that's when there's a reasonable lead time available which would not see pilots grounded.

About 12,500 probably would because the situation is being hidden from them.

Don't get off the track guys, you either live with CASA and RAA or read a newspaper from front to back for sport.

So what are you going to do about it?

In looking at the official notification of the General meeting, several issues concern me:

1. The Members decided the Meeting was so urgent, it should be held on December 19.

The Executive, not the board members decided this should be delayed nearly two months, with the last report indicating 1,000 aircraft grounded.

Neither the executive nor the board has the power to carry out a delaying tactic like this.

2. While the cost of the meeting, if it did reach $17,000.00 is high, this was brought on by a group of people over the years whose actions need to be brought to a stop.

For example, in relation to the massive cost blowouts a couple of years ago, I've found two unspecified items of around $200,000.00, neither necessary and neither which in my opinion would have been approved by the members. On one of them, I only need a little more information and I'll be able to had a brief to the ACT Police Fraud Sqad.

3. Members should be on red alert that conveniently the General Meeting has been adjusted to be held at the same time as a board meeting.

Members will recall at the AGM that for whatever reason, the urgent business was delayed for hours and that potential voters were walking out of the room about 1:30 pm

in increasingly bigger groups until the urgent business was finally dealt with after 4:30 pm.

I'm not suggesting deliberate tactics here, but members should ensure that nothing gets in the way of a timely conduct of a separate General Meeting unfetterd by the distractions of

people needing to catch aircraft etc. or vacate the room.

4. The answers to questions 1 and 2 by Paul Middleton are interesting in that they don't appear to be answers, crucial answers, voted on by the board.

The Notice on the RAA site of a Christmas closure from December 24 to January 2, with 1000 aircraft grounded, Flying Schools about to handle financial dynamite, and importers the same, really is amazing. I can just imagine in General Motors, faced by the same emergency, someone suggesting closing down for Christmas. They'd go close to being fired, and in fact leave would be cancelled from other divisions and people shipped in with the aim of getting the backlog cleared, executives would have their sleeves rolled up, and even Directors would be there helping.

I remember about the first part, but keep forgetting the rest.

The saddest part of this whole stinking affair is that as well as you CFI, a number of others have offered to go to Canberra and help, but there is no interest whatsoever.

The dead pilots in uncertified aircraft probably deserved a bit of respect too.

let me do the maths...10 people are able to process 2 registrations a day...their are about 200 working days in the year,,,therefor up to 400 a[c return to the sky...there is a backlog of 1000 (being joined by many more each working day)..should be about...6 months and we grind to a halt!.......and the office staff are neglecting the óther duties'....not looking good...

 

might have to return to the days when u couldn't be registered....but u flew anyway?

I would think this will take out some flying schools based on what has appeared above.

DGL, your question was very much loaded to the old ways of the past, which are not as practical today with much faster electronic communications. Face to face is great, but we used to only see a fraction of our members unless we were in an association where we conducted the activity together. So in some respects what you are suggesting would limit the contact to probably less than is possible.

Having said that I thought the exchange you had with the board member was quite a reasonable one.

However, i would like to point out to members that John McKeown's communication with them has been dignified, frank, and on the scale of thousands of members, using the electronic media as it should be used. His communication is by far the best of all the board members, and you can see from the responses that he has enormous respect from the membership - in fact on communicating skills and fairness he would make a good President.

Along with the list of things Captain had listed at the start, i'd also like to know what, specifically, RA-Aus failed in each audit.If its pretty much the same thing each time, then somebody really needs to be beaten about the head and shoulders with a clue bat.

In which case Runciman needs to stand down now and advise all actions he has taken since he resigned.

You are quite right that emails are legally accepted when posted to the appropriate place. The email from the president was not addressed to the offices of RA-Aus or any person based at those offices. Until it is posted to that place it is not a resignation by definition. I don't write the laws but that's what they say in this case.Regards

Can you provide the reference in the RA-Aus Constitution, or By-laws, of the Associations Incorporation Act 1991?

Ian, I also have just seen this email exchange and find the reaction from someone acting on behalf of all members, in other words in members names utterly disgusting and bring the Association into disrepute.

I have never seen a parallel to this in corporate business - where a major supplier on which an industry relies is suspended from doing business by failures of the administering body, yet told to go jump in the lake.

I would strongly recommend that those members who have seen the unsavoury story unfolding on this site go back to their clubs and get the support of thousands of members to help this highly regarded supplier.

There is another issue hanging over the head of the President and board members

Members have complained that an audited Financial Report was not presented at the AGM, and despite repeated reminders has not been presented to the Members.

That in itself is Unconscionable conduct.

Constitution 22 (i) e calls for an annual report from the Treasurer, but doesn't spell out the format, however:

A fully audited Treasurer's report is required to forwarded in accordance with Section 79 of the Associations Incorporation Act 1991

If this has not been done, the President and his board are within 28 days of default.

If the Association defaults, Runciman's and the board members' actions from the date of the AGM will come under some close scrutiny from more than the members.

I would have thought that the public officer was at the level of secretary or similar. If some permanent staff member is allocated that position, I would see that as being an unfair imposition upon that person. The job is pretty innocuous but it the connect between the organisation as an entity and anyone we deal with. If someone knows more please correct me. Nev

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RA-Aus-Constitution-V12-September-2012.pdf

Those two requirements appear to be the reason for a member of staff to be stuck with the job.

As you say it is grossly unfair that an employee may have to face responsibility for any criminal or civil misbehaviour of an elected official without having any control.

So that needs to be changed immediately.

There is nothing wrong with the ACT board member acting as Public Officer and Chairing the applicable meeting

I am happy to hear your queries and as you can see I will respond where I can. I am not familiar with Section 73 of that act. As it is ACT legislation and not Federal I would have to do some checking into where RA-Aus. was registered initially. As I do not know this information off hand I couldn't respond to your query. I wouldn't be surprised if RA-Aus. was a federally registered association to enable it to act as a regulator. If that was the case then the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 would not have any effect on the association. Legislation obviously only has effect int he place it was enacted. Even though RA-Aus. is currently based in ACT it doesn't mean it was registered there.If anyone can advise me on the place of registration I might be able to respond to that. Otherwise I will endeavour to find out.

 

regards

Recreational Aviation Australia, Inc. is registered under the Associations Incorporation Act 1991, administered by the Australian Capital Territory Department of justice and Community Safety.

There are no Federal Incorporated Associations

It is subject to the laws of the ACT

It is required to submit, and has submitted in the past, an Annual Return to the relevant section of Department of Justice, in which you as a board member would be named and would be responsible for the contents. Past records of Recreation Aviation Australia Inc are there, and are public records

So there's no doubt about where RAA resides.

Here's a link to the ACT's Associations Incorporation Act 1991

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1991-46/current/pdf/1991-46.pdf

RAA is required to comply with it, the Association's Constitution, and the Associations Rules.

Sorry, big fingers, small eyes, iphone