turboplanner

Normally I don't criticise spelling on the forum, but it seems to me that some of the thread headings with atrocious spelling stay around long enough to confuse many people.

Does the software allow these bloopers to be corrected?

Can Moderators check and correct them to create a more professional appearance to the outside world?

Yes, thanks Trish for your information.

We probably should keep discussing the issues and keep trying to improve safety.

Don't worry too much about it, you are learning to do a lot of things at the same time and it seems to take forever. Sometimes in the flare it's just a matter of patience.

made a mistake

Where the Council provides a footpath, it then has a duty of care to make sure that footpath is safe.

So if a tree root pushes it up or even a wombat undermines it the duty of care remains with the Council.

It goes back to the bottle of ginger beer

I thought we'd reached the peak of stupidity when someone succeeded in suing the Shire of Cobram after diving into the Murray River and hitting a snag.

The Murry River and its snags of course has been there for tens of thousands of years.

I forget the reasons for the judges decision now, but it revolved around the fact that the Shire fenced off an area for parking, and promoted the section as a swimming hole, with signposts etc.

In doing that they had a duty of care to maintain the area in a state suitable for swimming.

So it was logical after all.

Council footpaths are a nightmare because there can be thousands of grade separations and cracks, but grinding machines have been developed and inspection schedules set up which automate maintenance.

My local council logs all complaints and puts them into a priority queue for attention, which addresses the waiting list, but I'm not sure how well this would stand up.

Which brings us back to comments on this thread suggesting safety is up to the individual.

Self Administration is self administration.

CASA have people on the ground around Australia and systems in place to manage bad behaviour by pilots.

Who said RAA was absolved from doing the same?

I think Michael's ADHD makes a big difference in this case, and the question is who had the duty of care to train him effectively, audit and supervise his behaviour?

Sorry Col, made a mistake, I was referring to Clause 12 (iv) of the Constitution which provides for an Executive. I've edited my post to read 12 (iv)

From memory the Victorian Government reacted very fast to the "planking" craze after a couple of deaths.

Turbo, what are your views, your very quite and I know you have views. Im keen to hear them

Andy

That's not to suggest I'm anti RAA, just that there have been opportunities to fix things and I haven't seen them taken. I consider that Recreational Aviation includes all non-commercial operations.

So I've been more a spectator in the debate to date.

However I’m very interested in a healthy RAA.

Bear in mind the personnel structure and constitution of RAA has seen its rise to the dominant position in personal aviation in Australia, outstripping private GA.

It's been a spectacular rise, with powerful numbers.

I'd agree with the rag and bone men that they've been squeezed in the rush, but all they have to do is vote and be proactive to fix that

So fundamentally the RAA model is very sound.

The issues over the last couple of years are political, involving a very small number of people.

That trend is something many of you would have seen in Clubs from time to time

The usual fix is to organize a meeting to change the people and move on.

The present Constitution makes that impractical.

Recreational Aviation is an Incorporated Association, not a limited liability company.

It has a board of management, not a Board of Directors, and this misunderstanding has become one of the key factors in the present situation.

The board members are representatives of the members, not people appointed to personally make decisions based on their own skills and beliefs.

Importantly, in an Incorporated Association where these people are elected from the member base, they often will not have any management skills at all.

However, they can be very effective if they consult their members when issues arise.

That in turn requires transparency of operations, and as much as the older people tend to think private business is private, that’s the way of the past, and where public money is involved, open discussion is required.

Some of you have suggested RAA has outgrown the Incorporated Association shell, but that’s not necessarily true, and in fact would lead to permanent employees running things – employees you couldn’t control in the short term.

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia is very similar in operation to RAA in that it has a very wide geographic base, is potentially under pressure from some sections of the community, and has the need to maximise safety.

Its membership is 130,000, and it has run smoothly for years.

Their website is worth a look too.

http://www.ssaa.org.au/about-us.html

I’ve worked in Incorporated Associations for many years and the only structural issue I’ve found with RAA is that an Executive within the board of management is not appropriate, because we want ALL the representatives we elected to be making the decisions, (and a President who couldn’t get a majority from 13 representatives with today’s electronic media isn’t trying.)

The secrecy agreement which dominated discussions 18 months ago, appears to be still lingering around. While Don announced it had been ended when he was elected, he still signed one, so that needs to be cleaned up.

I wish you well in your debate on Constitutional reform but suggest:

(a)Trying to get a resolution on a forum, where there are people with hidden agendas and no interest in a coherent discussion, is probably going to end in mid air. A better forum would be for this interested to buy a cheap airfare to the Gold Coast for a weekend and sit down together in a room knocking it over detail by detail.

(b)The officials at the AGM may not share your enthusiasm, and you could use the last few AGM’s to gauge the chances of existing officials embracing your multiple

decisions.

To have any chance of success I’d suggest:

·You must be to get a very large number of attendees to the meeting.

·You must be able to get proposed Constitutional changes on to the formal Agenda

·You must keep the changes down to an absolute minimum to prevent the meeting dragging out into indecision.

To this end I’d suggest:

CHANGE 1

Constitution Clause 23 Other General Meetings – calling of

DELETE

(ii) “The Board shall, on the requisition in writing of not less than 5 per cent of the total number of Members, convene a general meeting of the Association.”

ADD

(ii) The Board shall, on the requisition in writing of not less than 60 Members, convene a general meeting of the Association.

Explanation

A substantial impediment is required in a Constitution to prevent a small clique or gang taking over, so in some cases rules may include a requirement for a 2/3 majority to do this.

Because of the nature of RAA – wide geographic spread, membership being compulsory to exercise privileges, the vast majority of members historically have not wished to take part in RAA activity (and on another level, CASA activity), they just want a Certificate to fly.

5% of 10,000 members represents 500 people, and that may have seemed a substantial impediment to ad hoc calling of General Meetings.

However, for reasons above, RAA is hard pressed to get 300 members to vote.

So when there’s a major issue you’ve got a snowball’s chance in hell of organizing a General Meeting.

To get 60 members to actually email a signed request to the Secretary would still be a huge ask, and would not lead to ad hoc General Meetings.

CHANGE 2

DELETE

CLAUSE 13 “Election of Board Members”

ADD

CLAUSE 13 “Election of Committee Members”

Reference to Board or Board of Management to be replaced by reference to “Committee, Committee Member” throughout the Constitution.

Explanation

Many members are confused about this pseudo corporate term, which can also lead to ego stroking and the belief that members’ representatives can take over and interfere with the daily operations of paid employees, and make decisions which have not involved members and are not transparent to members.

This puts the reference more in line with what an Incorporated Association is all about.

It also encourages issues to be brought forward, for example the thoughts and wishes of Constructors, and the Grass Roots flyers, for serious consideration by members and Committee.

CHANGE 3

DELETE

CLAUSE 12 (iv)

Explanation

The present drift into controversy is directly related to secrecy.

No one has raised any issues with In Camera discussions where this is required by the Privacy Act, or delicacy, but if necessary a suitable clause might be found.

SUMMARY

1.The major task is to get enough momentum within the membership so they actually understand the present situation and are prepared to act.

2.It may be possible to get a “No Confidence” Motion up at the AGM, but that is a difficult environment where other matters have to be dealt with.

It would be better to get a Constitutional change on t0 the Agenda which would allow practical calling of General meetings. Then, if members wanted someone replaced, it could be addressed at a General Meeting, and General Meetings could be used to discuss major trend issues (like grass roots flying)

3.The three Constitution changes suggested here will result in:

(a)The ability, with some hard work, to get General Meetings up to discuss things like changing personnel and the Constitution

(b)A clearer understanding by all that the people elected are there to represent the Members

©The end of official secrecy in an Incorporated Association handling public money.

Edited 24/5/12 - Delete Clause 12 replaced by Delete Clause 12 (iv) - deletion only applies to the Executive.

You've managed to miss the point totally Louis, have another read, and also go over the Youtube, and various threads on Michael's death, and you might come to another conclusion.

As I read this I couldnt help but visualise a heap of those "down down, prices are down...coles Red hand things pointing at me..." I havent been called a ***wit this week.....but perhaps its overdue....Oh well...moving on (Noting that my teflon coat seemed to be working well :<)

They certainly have David.

After putting in a lot of flying training, and many hours of theory and being prohibited from flying below 500 feet, I can remember being bemused at the hypocrisy of people being allowed to build their own aircraft, train themselves, and fly in the illegal zone.

Andy, getting the numbers is not beyond the realm of possibility; it happens in politics every decade or so, maybe about to happen with the Federal Government now.

I've seen in happen in quite a few clubs where the usual attendance at a meeting may be ten, then an issue occurs and three hundred turn up, appoint a new committee,boot the ringleaders out and the Club moves forward with a totally different culture.

The people in these clubs were much the same demographic as RAA members, so that's not the issue.

However, those meetings all had one thing in common, everyone knew what the problem was, and there weren't forums around where ****wits who didn't know what the problem was could put up strong arguments not to worry about what they, the poster didn't know about.

Hence the first step is to get the correct information out to all members.

EDIT: This post is not to be read in conjunction to the one immediately above it. I was just reacting to robinsm post there.

I may be naive, but with all the discussion, argument, remarks etc on this thread,I still really dont know the facts. I hear plenty of supposition and accusations, hearsay and innuendo but at the end of the day, nothing to solidly base a decision on. If a serious decision has to be made, then lets all have the FACTS as they stand. Surely one of the executive/management/board/people involved etc could enlighten us. Its no good saying things are rotten unless you can openly substantiate it. This is like making an important decision because someone heard that someone told some other person that someone else did something that may or may not have happenned. With the circular argument happenning here, I am rapidly loosing interest in the topic and you wonder why there is a large amount of apathy out there amongst the members when threads full of crap like this get around. Again I say either s..t or get off the pot!

I seem to remember seeing your name on a list of "staff", so if you can't bring yourself to pick up the phone and ask one of your representatives what the problem is you might like to ask Ian, but don't just bleat away trying to create enough mud to get everyone confused.

I wasn't having a discussion with her.

You're WRONG Pud, but I'm going to wait until all the posts come in before I offer and opinion.

Have to chuckle, the pilot in this video is a very well known and respected CFI and ROC. The flight also takes place over a designated low flying area. For the record, not something I would do in my Drifter but not as reckless as it looks. :-)

David maybe the flight does take place as you say, but there is no disclaimer, no qualification.

We are already discussing here the death of two people resulting from exhibitionism with the possibility that it started by someone in authority.

Can't these people THINK.

More like the good ship Venus

.What have I over simplified?

Andy

Quite a bit I think.

A lot depends on what evidence was produced. Remember the Coroner is only looking at the cause of death. Who was responsible is another matter, and I would expect different evidence to be presented when someone is deciding who is going to look after the families.

The annual inspection is a bit of a false trail - in some respects I'd see that as sloppy compared to requiring airworthiness at all times, and also don't forget this is just one State jurisdiction. There are better ways of tightening up than that.

Does the Sydney NW VFR land have the bright as an atomic explosion Strobe lights.?

I find it hard to believe anyone who didn't need a seeing eye dog could miss the Melbourne Light Aircraft Lane, but they do.

It's killing you all isn't it!

Sorry Trish, bad memory.

I can't speak for Trish, but I think she understood why we have these discussions.

The ADHD puts a different dimension on it which maybe you could talk about.

What Oz is saying about the aircraft being designed for aerobatics also points to other matters.

Yep, first hand!!Pud

So after all the tooing and froing we still dont have the first hand facts. Oh well , never let the facts get in the way of a good second and third hand supposition. Instead of dropping hints, will someone please publish the first hand facts so we can put this issue to bed.

To get first hand facts YOU have to contact a board member, otherwise they are second hand facts. This message seems to be taking a while to get through.

He does talk a lot of hot air:roflmao:Pud