turboplanner

Firsty, The only complaints I have read here regarding the calling of the EGM, revolve around the fear that a few stirrers might hijack the voting. .

If you class me as a stirrer, I won't be there to influence anyone. I made my decision about 18 months ago when I obtained the financial records (I hope you've obtained them too - if you won an aircraft the cost is a miniscule amount to inform yourself independently without influence.

I can't speak for anyone else who may be attending, but many people have aired their views from one extreme to the other, and I'd have to congratulate the Moderators on this forum, and Ian for providing a free-speaking platform.

I would repeat my first line though, that the situation is distressing enough for it to have got to the point where members have paid their money but can't fly, HOWEVER, it would be a disaster if one clique was booted out by another (and I'm not referring to Andy's group), and major improvements in processing and transparency did not occur immediately, so nomad I'm right with you on that fear.

Apart from that possibility the issues don't centre around pilot certificates.

I think you'e got a good point Sapphire. That piece of equipment, on which he'd been trained would have been front of mind at the time. At 600 feet reflexes are more important than spending two or three seconds saying to your self "Now will I do this, or will I do that, and what do I estimate the distance as" with "BRS", "BRS", "BRS" thumping in your ears.

Tiger can you clear up which ex president you were referring to; this really is a loaded gun if Runciman legally has no status other than member and is making decisions and communicating without authorisation because those decisions and communications (which might well be with CASA) may not be legal.

Good move Captain, this is the subject that poses the biggest threat to members - far more important than designing new structures.

This is something for Gavin Thobaven and Jim Tatlock to get their teeth into and publish in order to take away some of the pressure on the board.

Which two are you referring to Tubz

Oh, you're replying to my question on the previous page asking why he wants to fly 500ft circuits !I was hoping that planet47 would tell us why he wants to fly low circuits where the terrain is unsuitable.

 

That document doesn't really answer it for me, unless you are saying that they are obligatory.

 

If the terrain is unsuitable for low level circuits, why would you not fly higher ?

 

.

Let's just say they are not for fun.

OK you two what are you trying to say; in what way is that vote not a majority, not a legitimate vote?

I'm stunned that members who are well aware of what's been going on could put up with this disgraceful conduct. This is a critical time where serious issues are being discussed and serious decisions made, and the status of President is critical.

At a time when potential claims are quite likely, board members are putting themselves at risk by not checking the legality themselves.

Huh ??Quoi ??

.

It's at the bottom of the page.

You'll find more details in the CAR's on the CASA website

The three active circuit levels are one good reason for learning to fly very accurate ciruits.

There is for certain ultralights at an airfield Gentreau

Is it really a good system ? Not in my opinion.Seems to me like it favours the status quo and allows those who are worried about rocking the boat to effectively abstain from voting as "a majority has already been reached". It also favours a small majority group (some of whom may be under pressure to tow the line). You will never know what the sentiment really was on the board as 49% of them don't ever need to vote. How will you know whether the full vote would have been 51%/49% or 95%/5% ?? It would also be interesting to know how the system defines those who did not vote before the majority is reached (abstained?).

 

IMHO the only truly fair way to vote on board matters is a secret ballot with 100% obligatory participation. That way the individual members cannot be subjected to pressure or revenge and the true level of support for any motion is communicated by the vote.

If a majority is reached the vote is not going top change

The reason I say that particular method used in that particular context is a good system is that fast decisions can be made by people in widespread geographic locations, and is not delayed by someone being away on holidays, overseas, at a wedding etc.

Those decisions are always reversible, and where one or two of the group strongly disagrees they are usually on the phone very quickly calling for a reversal.

Thanks John, good system.

There was legal advice to say this could be done

If a concerned board member put the story which is emerging here to a solicitor AND MOST IMPORTANTLY mentioned the precedent vote by the board, another solicitor may well have given a different opinion.

So the situation is like a loaded gun. It could well be found that the second advice was the correct advice, in which case, as I've mentioned before, any action Runciman took after he resigned becomes very significant, and now, as a result of some board members ignoring the precedent and accepting what he said, they also could face some serious consequences, particularly since it appears some board members were excluded from the vote.

If a serious issue comes up in this period there could be very serious consequences for the people involved, but the quickest fix for this fiasco is just to move the participants on at a General Meeting.

The good thing coming out of this is that some board members are emerging as valuable representatives to be kept at all costs.

I wonder what ASIC would do if a group of members had a chat to their local member of the non-labor varity.'Can the minister for transport (or whatever department they call it now) please advise the house on what efforts are being made to insure that some 3000 small aircraft and 8000 pilots are being regulated and managed correctly'

I have spoken to the Shadow Minister on another matter, but unfortunately he is one of those happy go lucky professional politicians in a safe seat well past having the attack dog nature needed to get the Minister who seems a bit overwhelmed with understanding the different facets of transport to fire up the Director. It needs more of the story to come out in the open, and the fatalities to show up.

In any case, if it did get to an embarrassing question, the reaction would start with CASA - a bit like throwing a grenade at close quarters - there would be shrapnel coming our way as well.

The situation is still relatively easy to fix internally (within RAA), and the gaffes and actions of the last few days should make that easier, with more and more people realising there really is a serious problem, and the nest people to fix it are the members, and more of them.

Note that according to the above he briefed his own lawyer and he provided the advice.

No mention is made of the board members exercising due diligence.

FH I did suggest a few weeks ago that members set aside $3000.00 to $5000.00. Nothing is insurmountable, it's just a matter of the cost.

Hang on, why is it signed Steve Runciman President ? I thought he pulled the pin yesterday arvo ? I thought that once somebody resigns from board.There was no going back & recinding the resignation.

Or are we just getting bent over again & a pineapple being deposited where it dosent belong.

Pow, this is the sort of thing I was referring to. Action is being taken after a resignation. He may have been secretly reinstated and such reinstatement may have been legal, or the reverse could apply, and the actions turn into a horrific mess, particularly if registrations have not started.

Well Jim, with four audits failed in a row they will be looking for people who will correct that situation, and I don't see there would be any objection to new people.

However, I'm not getting any feeling of a trend to wipe out ALL the experienced board members.

If something is not occurring and an official states that it is then that is misleading, certainly in Parliaments leading to resignation.

Slarti, or one of the other guys which have been grounded, and well as a Pacific Ibis owner should answer this comment.

I'd compare it to pony club parents all right.....where the committee was shooting the ponies one by one.

Poses more questions than it answers

The organization structure is frequently clouded by the personalities of its inhabitants.

For example, you can have a completely wrong structure and constitution but if the key personality, the President or quite often Secretary is one of those lovable people of goodwill who work like a draught horse for the members, the organization can work well for many years in harmony.

On the other hand if there are egos, hidden ambitions, hidden agendas,or dishonesty even the correct structure model will fall apart over a period of months or years.

Life really is a bed of roses - you just have to watch out for the pricks.

If you let the paid officers do the day's work and interface with CASA (and remember you are not dealing with the Government, which is subject to Parliamentary debate in both houses, you are dealing with individuals who can make terrible decisions where you have no recourse (or they can be brilliant), then those people tend to naturally assume more and more decisions.

So if CASA came along and said "These rag and tube aircraft that are doing aerobatics and spins and beating up caravan parks, are really causing us grief, do you really need them, the employee could check the records, find the numbers had dwindled, find that they didn't even put on a display at Natfly and go back to CASA and say "No, looks like they've just about finished, so CASA, having consulted "RAA" could introduce a regulation phasing them out.

On the other hand, with the Members appointing representatives who reported back to the members with transparency, Ozzie and the entire K9 division of the rag brigade would be camped on CASA's doorstep.

So you can see the intricacies of the huge spread of interests can be more accurately catered for by the second structure, which is how an Incorporated Association is supposed to work.

The third version which you alluded to where there is a Committee of Management or in the ego-ridden organizations Board of Management, caters to the egos and can lead to members being kept in the dark by a lucky few. You would have seen some Clubs where officials get helicopter rides, trips to the gold coast, invitations to Board Room (genuine) discussions. I won't say what that can lead to.

So life really is like a bed of roses, you just have to beware of the pricks.

VERY GOOD POINT IAN - A CHANCE TO LET THEM KNOW WHO IS HURTING

If, as I understand it, Steve Runciman did resign as president and board member, and has not been reinstated, in my opinion his status is that of member.

In that case any action taken, unless/until reinstated against any other board member, or using the powers of a board member could have serious consequences.

Any other board member who joins any invalid action could also have a problem.

Be careful guys.