Oscar

I have always maintained that half the problem with the J motor is the material the case in made from, with too much movement and thermal expansion/contraction, and hopefully this mod will address that somewhat....

Yep, changing the through bolts and studs will of course address the supposed wisdom of 'the material in the case'. Now, the application of fundamental logic (not to be confused with wild supposition or regurgitation of ill-considered 'what everybody knows' mantras) says that if the material in the case was the problem, then every Jab. engine would be affected in a similar occurrence of duty cycles. Yet - wonderfully - that is not the situation.

There are well-recorded instances of Jab. motors running well beyond 1000 hours with no problems vs. Jab motors running 250 hours or so (or less) and developing problems. A fundamental issue with the crankcase material would NOT allow such variation in performance.

That the through-bolts are the first point of weakness for a Jab. motor that has been operated out-of-limits, is undeniable. The culprit in 'out of limits' here is primarily detonation, that places loads on the through-bolts and studs that exceeds the design parameters, and secondarily, running over temp. limits.

How many of the issues with Jabiru engines are the result of people blindly following the 'conventional wisdom' of 'use it hard?' - mistaking keeping the revs up for best cooling efficiency for 'working it hard' - always going for max ROC - firewall the thing on initial take off and then hold the aircraft at 70 kts to 1000 feet? As any driver who grew up in the era of carburetor-fed engines knows, the easiest way to get pinging (detonation) was to run the engine heavily-loaded in a high gear - especially in fairly high-compression engines designed for good fuel, on less than optimum (any Alfa driver from the 60's and 70's will know THAT one..)

Jab. engines that have achieved decent hours with no problems are, more often than not, those that have been used by private owners who have intelligent approaches to their engine management -though a few notable flying schools have also had good reliability results. To paraphrase an old saw: 'it's not how big it is, but how you use it' that matters.

Rod Stiff, Phil Ainsworth and two of Australia's best aero-engineers developed from scratch an aircraft that has had unrivaled international success in its class. Along the way, they also were forced to develop an engine manufacturing capability that has produced Australia's first export aero-engine manufacturing company.

Yes, not everything about the Jab. engines is as bullet-proof as it could be. The manufacturer of the engines (CAMiT) is fully aware of the problems and has solutions to those problems in train. Jabirus will continue to fly, despite the unfounded and ignorant prognostications of self-appointed experts.

Jim - I thoroughly appreciate your input and find it extremely encouraging - and I would excise 'most recent' from 'recent' in my evaluation of the Board/Executive performance. Let me be very specific here: I consider 'recent' to have ended as of, or soon after, 9 February this year. Neither do I include all members of the Board as being of equal status in the organisation arriving at the position it is now in - I am (and I think most concerned members are also) aware that there have been Board members with what might be loosely described as 'the right stuff' who have largely been sidelined and pretty much disenfranchised by the actions of a powerful few. The minutes of the Feb. 9 meeting clearly show that critical information was being obfuscated or simply withheld from some Board members.

I hold no specific candle for Steve Bell, Adam Finn or Wayne Matthews. What does concern me is whether the turn-over of Tech. Managers has been based on a proper evaluation of the job they were doing or on 'other' criteria. As mere members, we have no information on which to base a belief one way or the other. If, indeed, RAA has not been able to attract a series of Tech. Managers with the necessary level of competence, then the question has to be asked: why is this? Is RAA unwilling to provide sufficient budget to the position to get the person it needs (and if so, how much of the damn salary increase for Tizzard should have been directed towards obtaining a sufficiently competent Tech. Manager at the time - and whose neck should be on the block for THAT decision?).

Jonathan Aleck's discussion paper is a signal that RAA has - to be crude - to get its sh1t in order or be sidelined. The Tech. Manager and the Ops. Manager are the front-line troops for that. They need to be the right people and to be supported by the right operational environment. It's a holistic approach that is needed now.

There must be some personalities who can control their ego's. I feel a lot more confident about who we have than I used to. Of course they are under numbers at the moment and the techman "thing" is a pity. Don't like to see people who try hard getting hurt. I think techman is a fairly thankless task and unless we support them more , we may have continual stress there. I certainly wouldn't WANT the job, myself. Nev

Non-compliance with regulations is not an option. I have it on extremely good authority that a Tech. Manager, some time ago, was 'terminated' (to use the phrase currently in vogue) by a member of the Executive at the time because he was 'being too much like CASA' in his application of the regulations to the registration and acceptance of a claim for an increased MTOW for an aircraft that was contrary to the regulations. The validity of the documentation supplied to RAA that that particular Tech.Manager was unwilling to accept has been commented upon (highly adversely) in a Coronial Findings. It doesn't take a lot of connecting the dots here to work out the particular case, but the point I am trying to make is: the action by that member of the Executive to modify the (correct) decision by the Tech. Manager at the time 'in the interests of the RAA' - presumably - resulted in the RAA and CASA being enjoined in a legal action that has been very, very expensive for RAA. That a 'Coronial Finding' is a factor in all of this, should tell you what OTHER result there was - and no amount of expense for RAA removes that fact that someone died.

It is simply not good enough to place a Tech. Manager or an Ops. Manager in the position of having to turn a blind eye to compliance requirements for something as nebulous as 'the interests of RAA.' In fact, it can be - and demonstrably HAS been - culpable and willful negligence - and this is not just an emotive statement, because I am also aware that in this particular case, CASA referred to the Public Prosecutor a recommendation that criminal charges be bought against the person that supplied the documentation to RAA. (That did not proceed, as evidence was considered insufficient to ensure a conviction.)

One does not refrain from scaring the horses by moving them when the damn stables is burning down. There is considerable evidence to suggest that RAA members have been treated as mushrooms by past Boards/Executives in regard to too many matters of serious concern: proper accident reporting that highlights problems leading to the accident, the progress of registrations, problems with compliance, the lack of proper response to CASA audits/ requirements/implementation of required systems, timely reporting of important issues - do I need to go on?

If we as a group believe that the regulations under which we have to operate are inappropriate, too restrictive, too bureaucratic- then we need to act to change those regulations. We need to become politically active, to lobby our local members of Parliament, campaign, whatever it takes. RAA can be the body to do those things. However: it is absolutely NOT the role of the Tech. Manager or the Ops. Manager to ignore, slide around or fail to adhere to the regulations that currently exist because they do not represent 'the interests of RAA.'

The regulations are prescriptive: that means they must be adhered to. 'The interests of RAA' are descriptive: ' this is how we would like to world to be'. The Tech. Manager and the Ops. Manager have a duty of care to the RAA to ensure that the regulations are properly adhered to. If, in fact, the last three Tech.Managers have all failed to do their job of ensuring adherence to the regulations - then that is a very concerning circumstance and the selection of Tech. Managers needs acute scrutiny. Conversely, if they were simply doing the job required of them but it was determined by the Board/Executive that by so doing they were not advancing 'the interests of RAA' - then the scrutiny needs to lie with the understanding by the Board/Executive of just what RAA actually MUST do to keep the members flying - safely.

I have (perhaps over-optimistic, but I don't think so) expectations that the incoming Board has at least some members with the expertise and willingness to resolve any existing dichotomy between ' the interests of RAA' and compliance. For too long, 'the interests of RAA' have been a 'whore who would sell herself to any drunk with a spare sixpence'.

If we have, indeed, had a succession of Tech. Managers who have been incompetent to apply the regulations to ensure compliance - than it has been most certainly been a very unusual run of bad luck - or bad judgement on the part of those who appointed these people in the first place. If it is the case that by working to maintain compliance with the regulations, these Tech. Managers have failed to - in the eyes of the Board/Executive - to further 'the interests of the RAA', then the scrutiny needs to be applied to why 'the interests of RAA' are at odds with compliance.

The simple fact is, that as members, we have NO information by which to make any judgement either way: three Tech. Managers have left with NO explanation of why - beyond 'the interests of RAA.' I'd be far, far more comfortable in accepting this statement if the Board/Executive had a glowing record of stellar achievement on RAA's behalf. Unfortunately, I have to say that the recent performance of the Board/Executive is as transparently obvious as lead and as polished as moss on a rock.

Andy, The concept of regular audits in high on my to do list. Although having a technically competent person conduct the audits is ideal, as you suggested I do not think impeative. If during an audit you discover so abnormal data this can always be looked into by a competent person in the specific field. Worksafe audit in this fashion regularly. Look, ask questions, not convinced, further research, discuss with regulator and eventually the truth and discovery. I think your suggestion could easliy work.As to RAAus implementing a system. I would hope we capture it with the upgrading of the SMS.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

Vic Rep RAAus.

Jim, someone without a sufficient technical background could really only audit to see the due process has been faithfully carried out, so the efficacy of that level of audit can really only be as good as the specificity of the process definition. That is not to denigrate the benefit of any audit - anything is likely to be better than nothing - but to point out that the technical complexity requires a level of knowledge that a generalist will not have.

Can I point out an example? - a recent report of an amphibian mentioning that a certain propeller - a non-approved one - was fitted. Wayne took entirely the correct action in response - which was not something that would have been picked up in the standard re-registration process because that process does not go to the level of specificity. Whether or not the actual propellor in question was in any way dangerous or alternatively the absolute duck's pajamas - is not the point here: the point is that the aircraft in question no longer met the 'standard', and by so not doing, was operating outside the security blanket that the standard provides. That, in turn, has potentially serious legal implications for the operator if there is an accident and the functioning of the propellor is even just a suspect component. Had RAA re-registered that aircraft with that propellor on it (in all innocence of that fact), it may well have ticked all the necessary boxes and been given a clean bill of health by an internal audit - and still been in the firing line in a court case.

I agree with that, however your opening paragraph on the post I originally quoted to me suggested that those who speak of governance and controls are a bunch of idiots who may well believe that Lotto is a way to fortunes for all...(my words not yours). I'm still in the corner that says if previous boards had paid it some mind then the issue of ongoing rolling groundings that we have at present wouldn't probably exist.I don't necessarily agree that "'Good Governance' as a panacea to the failure to achieve compliance was ineffectual." it is my view that had we an internal audit and an effective risk management methodology then the circumstances where compliance was missed/ignored then it might well have been found by internal audit well in advance of CASA finding that and the risk management methodology might well have identified, as you have correctly alluded, that while there are many aspects to RAAus, the technical compliance demanded by CASA is one that has the fastest and most severe consequences for failure. That to me would mean that having identified that set of facts around consequences then audit of controls will focus often and deeply on how we fulfill that obligation.

 

Why have I got it wrong?

 

Andy

However, these are not principles that directly affect the matter of RAA operating to meet its compliance requirements: that is fundamentally a technical matter that requires specific expertise (the management of the exemptions) and strict adherence to process and procedure that is fundamentally no product of any of the fine principles espoused. However, the laws of physics are not modified by the philosophical environment in which they operate: your stall speed does not depend on whether it was determined in a caring, sharing way. Metallurgy is unaffected by good intentions: an under-spec. bolt will still break whether it has been blessed by seven virgins and a clutch of Popes or shouted at by Rasputin incarnate.

One could, at a stretch, liken the division of 'compliance' from 'general RAA operation' to the infamous example of Mussolini getting the trains to run on time in Italy: I don't think anybody would suggest that was a product of 'Good Governance', 'Democracy', 'Teamwork' etc. - but (presumably) at least one could go to work on the train and arrive on time!

DWF has summarised the matters of primary concern for the subject of this thread extremely concisely and I believe completely accurately in the post above. I also happen to agree with your contention that an effective internal audit of adherence to compliance issues would most likely have had great effect. What I am saying is that simply banging the drum that adherence to these overarching principles would have made everything right, is unrealistic and very possibly counter-productive because there are specific matters that need investigation, analysis and rectification.

Andy - of what relevance to compliance does Middleton's usurpation of funding to promote his case before the February meeting have? I made no case for or against 'Good Governance' in relation to the general carriage of RAA affairs - I made a comment to the effect that 'Good Governance' as a panacea to the failure to achieve compliance was ineffectual. A Tech. Manager performing at better than World's Best Standard would have had ZERO influence on Middleton's use of RAA funds.

A company can meet every standard for the audit of its finances and completely fail to meet its performance targets due to inept management decisions. This thread is about the Tech. Manager's dismissal.

Maj, The full board was party to a meeting in regards to the Technical Manager which lead to the current situation. From what viewpoint do you suggest "Sorry, but from the imput I received on the Wayne affair it didn't look like teamwork was well exercised in this case........................"? If any current board member has indicated they were not informed or not consulted they are not being forcoming with facts.Obviously the decsion that was made was done with the RAAus interest first (above the person). Not at all taken lightly.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

RAAus Victroian Representative.

The role of the Tech.Manager is to ensure compliance with the regulations that bind us. Those regulations do not refer to any of these wonderful philosophical concepts. Allowable MTOW (for instance) is not a democratic decision, is not founded on the application of good governance and is certainly not a product of teamwork. Introducing these concepts to the argument as to whether the Tech. Manager(s) have done a good or bad job, or have had their employment terminated, is completely and utterly irrelevant.

I would like to believe that the Board made the correct decision in this case - but the term 'RAAus interest first' does not provide any guidance here. In fact, and being aware that a Tech. Manager (some time ago) had his employment terminated because he was unwilling to bend the compliance rules - which resulted in a very expensive court case for RAA and incidentally (though that is a horribly mean term to use in the circumstances) the death of at least one member of RAA - I am not at all happy to hear the phrase 'with the RAAus interest first' used, without at least explanation of just WHAT part of the 'RAAus interest' was the determining factor in the 'full Board' decision.

If the performance of Wayne Matthews in regard to remediation of compliance issues - and let us all remember, it is the failure of RAA to maintain compliance that resulted in a series of adverse CASA audits - was the determinant, then I would absolutely support the Board decision in this case. I think that should be clarified, not simply obfuscated behind a statement that 'it was done with the RAAus interest first'.

HOWEVER: if the phrase ''with the RAAus interest first' is code for 'furthering our political objectives in defiance of adhering to the compliance requirements' - then I would not be a happy camper. The Runciman/Tizzard/Middleton triumvirate period plunged us into the mire of inadequate compliance that now sees 500 or so aircraft unregistered and more than a hundred - apparently - in a desperately uncertain situation as to whether they are basically several hundred kilos of hi-tech. material illegal to be used for the purpose for which they were purchased, by persons who trusted the RAA's procedures to be kosher. That they were not, is palpably obvious.

Jim, I appreciate that you appear on this forum and attempt to provide far more useful information than we get from RAA itself - which frankly, if one has any experience of 'official-speak', has been for the past several years at least a paradigm example of the application of the mushroom principle. RAA cannot be just a 'Jolly Aeronautical Pals' club, where inconvenient facts are ignored. RAA members not only have significant financial investment in their activity - they rely on RAA doing its job properly for their safety up to and including their life. If RAA fails do do its job of compliance properly - people can die. This is not fantasy - it is fact, and (tragically) demonstrable fact.

I would like to hear an explanation of the Board decision to terminate Wayne Matthew's employment in terms of a failure to adequately ensure compliance - that, I would accept as an entirely reasonable and indeed necessary decision. I regret that (and this is based on the performance of the Executive in particular in the past several years) the phrase 'with the RAAus interest first' has exceedingly negative resonance.: the performance of the Board in recent history has demonstrated a priority for self-interest above member benefit.

I have no idea why the RAA hasn't already modernized the registration system? Its about a week's worth of programming to create a documentation system from scratch.

However, it is most certainly not 'about a week's worth of programming', unless you are simply talking about a direct replacement of shuffling paper with working at a screen - and that would create no greater efficiency.

Registration is a 'business process'. It requires far more than just electronic recording of data replacing paper recording of data - it requires that the rules under which the process actually happens is an integral part of the system design, so that the system automatically checks for certain conditions and either allows the process to continue or flags the exception status for human attention.

As a very (over-simplified) example: Aircraft XXXX registration is due for renewal by 1 September. Renewal is contingent of the following: the payment of the registration fee, the current RAA membership of the owner, a photo of the placard and compliance with an A/D issued since last Registration.

To be effective, the Registration system needs to automatically cross-check the finance system to ensure the Registration fee has been received, the Member's system to ensure the Owner is a current Member, there is a record of a photo of the placard having been received and held on the database (and that the date of last submission of a photograph of the placard is within whatever time-limit is imposed e.g. the last 12 months), and that a record of compliance with the A/D has been provided. Now, that last one might require that the A/D has been performed by an accredited L2, which then requires cross-checking with the List of Approved Maintenance Personnel system that the signatory for that compliance statement is a valid person (anybody remember that RAA issued a pilot's certificate to a person who claimed training from a school that didn't even exist?).

Now, that's just for a way over-simplified version of real life. In order that such a system be effective, it needs to do these mundane tasks not just correctly, but auditably - or else, the Tech Manager is still in the position of having to review and verify every condition, which would take as long as the old paper-based shuffling routine.

A proper business process management system with on-line, secure reporting by owners would be a godsend to RAA - but it MUST be properly designed,specified and then coded. Be assured, the design and specification of the system is in fact a fairly complex issue. You simply cannot just hand over a set of data field names to a programmer and tell them to 'make it happen'.

What is 'mimicking GA' supposed to mean? Compliance with the regulations is not 'mimicking GA' - it is adherence to the standards imposed by the authority that has the legislative power to impose those standards. We cannot deny CASA's legislative authority -if we want to change that, then we have to persuade the Federal Government to accept our positions.

CASA - and its authority - is a product of federal Government legislation. It did not suddenly start up and the federal Government said: 'oh.,well, just let these guys get on with it'. If you genuinely believe that democracy is at the heart of the rules we all live under: then this country democratically decided that CASA should exist. CASA is a fact of life - unless the nation decides, democratically, to remove its authority. RAA does not have the options of going in a path that differs from what CASA determines.

To class what Jonathan Aleck has written as 'sophistry', is denial in the extreme. Take it as a statement of CASA position or fall under the road-roller of designated authority.

CASA has already instituted the 'parallel' pilot certification regime - the RPL. Only a maintenance regime that is sufficiently similar to what exists for RAA-class operation needs to be established and RAA is redundant for all those operators who cannot give a fig about 'democratic' management of their flying affairs - from voting statistics, something of the order of 90% of RAA members.

Wake up and smell the (dwindling) 100LL, people. Too many of our members are dying in crashes, we cannot keep up with registration renewals, we have failed to adequately maintain observance with the compliance issues for registration, we are way behind on instituting an acceptable SMS. Our Tech.Managers have a current statistical life expectancy of three months. We have had three Presidents in the last eight months.

Which part of: 'F*ck, we are in deep trouble' do you not understand?

Lets move on guys, Wayne is happier out of there and will always find something to do.Lets let Mark get on with running the business for our benefit.

HOWEVER - and once again - it would appear that the adage that 'those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them' has struck. Apart from the vicarious sport of entering bets against how long the next Tech. Manager will last in the position, the turn-over of Tech. Managers can surely only be seen as an expression of the dysfunctionality of the RAA as an organisation. The repetition of Tech. Managers lasting a matter of months is a cancer; the new Board MUST address this as a matter of primary concern - and to do that, it needs to conduct an investigation of what has happened in the past, identify the common factor(s) and excise the contributing elements.

I know that I am by no means alone in believing that certain personalities figure largely in that equation, but it is up to the Board to undertake the necessary fact-finding and take the necessary action. Unless this is done - and done decisively - there is a real possibility that the new Board will be left with little more to do than put the chairs on the tables and turn out the lights on RAA. I have confidence in at least some of the new members of the Board being both capable and willing to take up that challenge and they have my total support as an RAA member to do exactly that.

The forthcoming period in RAA history is not 'business as usual' - it is: 'evolve, or die.' There are good, competent people coming onto the Board in September; RAA members need to support them in changing the organisation for the better.

Last month, Jonathan Aleck of CASA released a 'Discussion Paper' on RAAOs. It is worth reading.

In particular, it is worth noting this section: (bolding has been added by me)

Acceptance of the Level Playing Field13. With few exceptions, the invidiously monopolistic domination of a market, including the ‘market’ for sport and recreational aviation activities, is inconsistent with contemporary Australian economic principles and, in some cases, the law. In the event, it is simply not realistic to expect or assume that any individual RAAO, whatever its historical tenure may be, is entitled to occupy a particular field of activity exclusively and without competition. In theory, and in fairness, any organisation capable of satisfying the requirements for approval as an RAAO could and should be eligible to apply for an approval, and any organisation satisfying those requirements should be entitled to be approved.

 

14. That said, having regard to the nature and extent of the kinds of sport and recreational aviation activities currently administered by existing bodies, and cognisant of the potential safety risks attendant on the approval of more than one RAAO to administer essentially the same activities, it is not unreasonable to expect that, as a matter of safety and consistent with applicable anti-competition laws, CASA might not properly approve more than one applicant in respect of a particular sphere of activity.

 

15. At this point, it would still be premature to speculate about whether, and if so under what circumstances, there might be more than one RAAO approved to administer the same activity (in at least one case, there already is), and it would be unwise to suggest or imply that there will only ever be a single RAAO approved to administer a particular activity. As a practical matter, however, and mindful of CASA’s overarching commitment to safety, and our expectations of others in that connection, it is reasonable to say that one of the most effective bulwarks against competition is to strive to offer the very best product and services, on reasonable terms and at affordable prices.

If - to be exceedingly charitable to the Board of the time - these terminations were all due to a lack of professional competence to handle the requirements of the position, then the selection capability of the Boards of the time has to be seen as woefully incapable. I personally find it very difficult to accept that there has been a passing parade of inadequate Tech. Managers.

That leaves the possibility that there is a deep-seated and fundamental schism between the understanding of the requirements of the position as seen from the Tech. Manager's desk vs. what the Board / Executive expects. Another word for this is organisational politics.

The Tech. Manager operates within a clear framework of administration of the CASA requirements. There is no qualification of those requirements to suit the 'political' quirks of an organisation, no 'if it pleases your Lordship' condition. It is, frankly, very difficult to believe other than that this succession of terminations of Tech. Manager employment is evidence that RAA senior management is not prepared to accept that the performance of the Tech. Manager position requires all the necessary boxes to be ticked - that in some way, the Tech. Manager should 'modify' the exercise of the position to please the grand poobahs at the top of the organisation.

This has to be fixed - and fixed fast. If anybody thinks that CASA does not notice that when it contacts the Tech.Manager, it has to ask to be connected to 'whoever is in the position today', they are surely dreaming? Jonathan Aleck is signalling that unless an RAAO can offer 'the very best product and services', it will entertain the creation of competitive methods of providing the services.

My source is usually reliable - but the office is in such a bugger's muddle at the moment, I'm not prepared to put $2 on the bar that it's correct. The turnover of Tech Managers in the last 18 months is so seriously over the top, that it requires Board investigation - even if this IS no more than a rumour. That said, RAA needs some stability: CASA is NOT going to accept 'monopoly' status for our activities for an organisation that is changing its key personnel faster than a whore changes her underpants when the fleet is in port..

Note: This post was merged in from another thread - Mod xox

"On Monday 19th of August, 2013, the President Rod Birrell and the Treasurer Jim Tatlock met with Kevin Scrimshaw (Safety Assurance Officer) of CASA’s Self Administering Sport Aviation Organisations Section (SASAO). Meetings covered in detail what CASA’s SMS requirements are for Sports Aviation Organizations such as ours.On the following day, Tuesday the 20th, CASA, RAAus Operations Manager Zane Tully and I began to develop a suitable SMS for our organization. The proposed system offers RA-Aus. the following benefits:

 

• A Safety Management System that is acceptable to CASA

 

• A SMS that is similar to those adopted, or being developed by other Sports Aviation Organisations (able to share data)

 

• Inexpensive

 

• Stand alone from other procedural documents (smallest impact on current practices)

 

• Able to be developed and rolled out to Flying Training Facilities (FTF’s) and Clubs minimizing workload for end users

 

The meeting with CASA will now be discussed with the RA-Aus. Board and a clear direction for the development and implementation of an updated SMS will be published in the near future."

Or have I missed something basic to my argument?

Surely there's a chicken-and-egg syndrome here? From what I understand ( and I am happy to be corrected), it was basically a situation that CASA was prepared to hand over the administration of Ultralight aircraft operation to a suitable body - and the RAA was created out of the ashes, as it were, of the 'peak Club' authority that was the AUF. Did the Clubs decide that a new 'peak' authority was necessary and CASA seized on the existence of RAA, or was it that RAA was created to fit the authority CASA was prepared to accept?

In the former case, it is arguable that the combined force of an association of Clubs presented the opportunity for RAA to take on the compliance administration role. However, if CASA was the horse here - requiring a single 'authority' to undertake the administration role - then I suggest that the existence of RAA has naught to do with Clubs associating to create a peak body. I see nothing in the Constitution that suggests a hierarchical structure founded on Clubs.

Hey, everybody - Clubs are not the issue here. Clubs do not issue your registration or Pilot's Certificate. You do not have to belong to a Club to keep flying your RAA-class aircraft.

RAA does.

Whatever the dynamics may be in any Club to which you belong - your membership is voluntary. However, to keep flying your RAA-class aircraft legally, you HAVE to be a member of RAA - it is a monopoly. RAA is NOT a Club - it is a Business - the business of keeping you legally in the air. And, it has significantly failed to deliver a decent level of service over the last few years. It does not provide airfields, club houses, hangars, newsletters, or represent your interests to local authorities.

Any discussion of the dynamics of Clubs has no relevance to RAA's performance. Can we please get back on track here?

The treasure hunt is to find why the members don't care about the RAA. I doubt that will change without some effort.

Aero clubs provide a fine 'community' structure. For most owners andpilots, RAA is simply a mechanism to ensure their aircraft can keep flyng. Perhaps this is the essential message that the voter turn-out broadcasts - and RAA needs to listen to that message.

Firstly, great to see Michael Monck elected - new blood, expertise, a good beginning to breaking the 'old boy' paradigm that got us to the situation as at the start of this year. Michael plus the SQ members already elected de facto, (and in this case at least, 'elected unopposed' is no bad thing) bodes well. I'm personally a bit disappointed to see the low number of votes for Barry Wrenford - also a damn good candidate,as anybody who knows Barry would agree.

Andy's point about the voter turn-out is worthy of deep consideration. For all the expressions of allegiance to 'democracy' we have had on this forum, it is painfully obvious that 'democracy' is not an issue of concern to the vast majority of RAA members. I believe that the conclusion to be drawn from that is this: what most operators/pilots of RAA aircraft want, is effective and efficient administration of the issues that affect their activities.

How many similar expressions of voter concern will it take to dispel the idea that RAA should be some sort of 'super-club' of like-minded aviation enthusiasts, with a metaphorical secret handshake and white silk-scarf insignia? That is the province of the various clubs - of which I am a member of one, not even remotely adjacent to me! Social contact, the provision of good facilities etc. is a Club matter. I value my Club membership - but what I personally want from RAA is the most cost-effective conduit for the processing of all the compliance issues we must meet, because the nature of our activities requires an 'authority' that exercises the exemptions granted by CASA for our activities.

The simple conclusion is: RAA needs to be the over-arching body that ensures compliance with the regulations by which we have to abide. The foremost concern of the new Board should be to deliver an organisation that does that - and nothing more, at this stage. Get that aspect right and perhaps there is room for RAA to also be more - but at the moment it has monumentally failed in its primary obligation to members.

A very fair question and highly deserving of serious consideration.

On balance, even though I am concerned that the various changes may not work out in the long run to have the effect they seek to embrace, I am personally inclined to think that this is a time when change of its own sake may just be beneficial: it is palpably obvious that a continuation of 'business as usual' is simply not viable for RAA's future existence. As things stand, I believe that an ambience of change may be what is needed to RAA to concentrate on the evolution it simply HAS to accomplish in order to become the organisation that serves its members' interests effectively - and if this means having to stumble over a few 'well, THAT didn't work out too well' moments... sometimes a purgative is what is needed to unclog the bowels of the beast.

It might just be that 'Constitutional Reform' is, on balance, no more than a change in a palliative care regime and what emerges as the obvious way forward is in fact a seriously major overhaul to the operational arrangement of RAA. It could be, for instance, more effective for RAA to become a two-headed monster: on the one hand, providing a commercially-based service to its members in regard to registration, compliance, certification, operations etc., and on the other, a vociferous lobby organisation to promote our interests at local, regional and federal level. The creation of such an entity would take more than 'Constitutional Reform', however.

I believe we are at the situation where all options need to be on the table and seriously considered. That is not going to happen where the organisational culture is 'don't frighten the horses'. Should CASA develop a maintenance regime for privately owned and non-commercially operated aircraft that dovetails with the RPL philosophy (which could be considered as 'GA-light'), if RAA cannot be effectively 'competitive' as the stream for aircraft owners and pilots to continue their activities as they wish - RAA might well revert to a glorified club for mainly 95-10 machines.

Is that what we want?

Yep- right now, all Departments are busy generating three different sets of information: one for the same Minister in the job (which is mostly 'possible Parliamentary questions' likely to arise from election campaign issues that have surfaced), one for a new Minister from the same government coming into the job, and one for a new Minister from the opposite side in case of a change of government. Those briefings ( and they are a pain in the arse to prepare, I can assure you, you get sod-all of your real work done while preparing them) are largely non-political in nature - i.e. they don't cover overtly 'political' implications of decisions etc. that may be taken,- that is left to the Ministerial staff to add - but do tend to evaluate how certain issues may align with any expressed policy of the alternative potential Governments.

And 'training' a Minister in how the actual business of her/his Department works is a time-consuming business, especially if the Minister has never held a portfolio before (and while not quite as 'Yes, Minister' as you might think, that show had an awful lot of resonance and rather more sharpened than stretched the truth..)

As much as it is rather satisfying to vent one's frustration with politicians ( Hate 'em or loathe 'em, you aren't allowed to hit 'em with a shovel..), if you've never worked in close proximity to Ministerial seats of power it's sometimes difficult to understand just how capricious the process of getting attention can be.

A Minister's office functions rather like a tiny fiefdom. Ministerial staff (not the public servants in the relevant Department, but the Minister's personal staff) are a fairly impenetrable wall between the 'general public' and the Minister her or himself. It can take just one of those in a fairly senior position to take a set against an individual or group and trying to get through to the Minister becomes almost impossible: you can write letters, seek meetings etc. on issues that affect you and your attempts may never get to the Minister's attention - no matter how important the issue may be, unless you can generate sufficient interest in the Press that it becomes potentially politically 'dangerous' to ignore.

However - and here I can speak from personal experience, having trudged the corridors of Old Parliament House to sit with the Minister and detail the problems - IF you can get the Minister on-side about an issue, a Ministerial direction to her/his Department to 'do something about fixing this' has immense impact. In the particular case in which I was deeply involved, we had spent over a year writing to the Department concerned and getting 'thank you for your letter, we'll get back to you' responses, with no progress. We spent about 20 minutes with the Minister (in that case, Peter Nixon, known by himself with glee as 'the bastard from the Bush') outlining our case; he picked up the phone, called the head of the Department concerned, and told him: 'I want you to meet with these people.... no, in the next day, please'. The result of that was, that after several years of fruitless attempts to get anywhere with the Department, we were suddenly accorded a position on the Motor Vehicle Performance Standards advisory committee and able to properly influence rules and regulations that affected our activities.

Ministerial staff are out there in the community just like everybody else, and you never know when one is at least obliquely aware of the nature and activities of groups such as us. It's just not in our interests to get these people off-side.

Quite seriously, people, I don't think that introducing political ( in the sense of governments, be they Federal or State) commentary helps us. If RAA is to progress, it needs to be able to work with whatever government is the current owner of the portfolio that makes the rules that affect us. Don't think that toss-off political comment may not be noticed and thereby construed by politicians as indicating partisanship (pro or anti) to their persuasion.

No matter which way you lean politically, it is in our interests to be considered as a part of the constituency worthy of accommodation. We will NOT get the attention we need to our issues if we are considered by the government of the day to be antipathetic to their interests and political philosophy. We need to be seen as a group of value to whatever flavour of government is in power, if we are to get any attention leading to progress on our issues.

Swallow your political affiliation in regard to your flying activities - and if it helps to assuage one's inclinations, please remember that while Labor has done sweet bugger-all for our cause in the last period of its government, the National's Peter Anderson was the one who handed control of regional airfields to local Councils that are turning them into rate-generating real estate all over the place. Perhaps the best that can be said, is that both sides of politics have done sod-all that we need to happen, so if we are to do better in future let's not start with being on the outer with either of the mobs that will certainly hold the Ministerial office relevant to our activities.

Or, in cruder terms - don't sh!t in our own nest.

I hold out great hopes for the Restructure Committee achieving the start of a major evolution (preferably NOT a 'revolution', which by ironic definition rather means that what went around comes around again!), and the regard that Spencer Ferrier is held in by knowledgeable members of the aviation community is only ONE of the reasons for this!. A Board with much new, expert and enthusiastic (albeit some may feel this is entering a swamp with a known overpopulation of alligators..) membership will bolster that progress - what we do NOT need is a Board comprised of people who doggedly maintain that the world is flat and therefore pushing CASA over the edge will solve our problems, nor a membership that believes that 'democracy' is the one true way forward and the Holy Grail for the Association - and beyond espousing that general concept, actually do nothing of use to ensure that it is an effective mechanism for ensuring that RAA works as it needs to do.

Whether one likes it or not, adherence to recognised 'standards' is one of the most effective defences against litigation, and RAA activities are a potential minefield for litigation. RAA right now has on its financial books a very, very expensive example of the cost of failure to maintain standards - and far more sadly, two good people died as a result of that failure. Let nobody be ignorant of the fact that, should RAA activities become branded in law as a 'dangerous recreational activity', the repercussions for individual RAA-class aircraft owners / operators will be far-reaching and potentially dire. Think Public Risk insurance through the roof, just for starters.

RAA has - for its survival - to become highly (and demonstrably in a Court of Law), professional and auditable in regards to adherence to standards. Ideally, it would also be in a position to influence the setting of the standards that apply, by expert representation to the standards-setting authorities. I've been down that road (no pun intended) in regard to representation of motorcyclist's concerns to the standards-setting authorities, and with some success - we worked WITH the authorities, starting at Ministerial level and working downwards. Hard yakka - but with proper research, presentation and persuasion - it is possible. The first hurdle was to demonstrate that we were, in fact, a group operating with intelligence, responsibility and rationale on our side. Confronting the responsible Minister with 10,000 of our members outside Parliament House did wonders for his (Milton Morris) appreciation that we were not to be dismissed out-of-hand..

RAA must move from being something of a 'club', to being a recognised force in aviation - and frankly, if we are to keep access to airfields and airspace, to being valued by the community at large. The first step to that is to be a really professional organisation, able to point to a record of success in maintaining standards in all of our operations. The contribution that GA makes to business and community life is pretty much a given by society, RAA needs to achieve the same sort of status.

I do think it is possible for RAA to encompass every form of 'light' flying from the purely recreational - the 'view of the ground from higher-up' idea - through to a limited commercial use of the capabilities of the aircraft that fall within RAA's purview. It's going to take some fairly visionary people on the top echelon of RAA management to achieve an organisation that can accomplish this - and they're going to need to be damn good at weaving their way through the rules and regulation that apply. I see people coming onto the Board / contending for positions on the Board who have the ability to carry the organisation forward, transcending the miasma that has led to our current problems.

Hopefully, the general membership will turn out and support the transition of RAA by the thoughtful voting of a Board that is willing and capable of guiding and implementing that transition.

Don, I completely agree with that, and my feeling is that what is being proposed in pretty much all the amendments is in all probability the best that can be done in the current circumstances. I just think that RAA has to move eventually to a different business model, and an Association may well not be the best option - but that needs to be done in a well-considered manner and the first step in that journey is most certainly a Board capable of and willing to examine all options and work through those to arrive at the best way forward.

Effective and efficient communications is most certainly a core problem, but equally so is the problem that RAA compliance needs to be accomplished as a proper, modern business practise management system. Here is not the right space to debate that, but it is obvious that just a registration system that requires more staff time and input than is available - i.e. the work required exceeds the resources available - is evidence on its own that the current arrangements are a failing enterprise. It appears that we are heading inexorably to the point where there will be a greater backlog of unregistered aircraft than can be managed within the renewal period available!

There is always the distinct chance that amendments such as these being currently proposed will lead to 'unintended consequences'; however I strongly suspect that within the next 6 years, the entire management/administrative / governance structure will be forced to evolve to a more effective and relevant structure for the organisation.

Given that, I generally support the various amendments being proposed on the basis that they will, in all likelihood, tend to produce an interim result that is conducive to effecting the sort of changes that will be required - even if that ends up being a (quasi, at least) commercial-type 'business' structure with perhaps an adjunctive promotional / lobbying arm that is responsive to regional interests etc.