RAAus stopping membership

[bushpilot]

(This thread is a spin off from another thread that was about doing a BFR which saw the application for membership to RAAus was prevented. So as the posts went off topic, they have been moved to here as a new thread. Another thread was started by users for the same topic so those posts have also been merged here into one thread...Ian)

 

So, Ian, you hanging out for a better offer? And the winner is.............

 

 

[Admin]

Chris, gotta wait now for the legal action against the RAAus to take its course...Mr Steven Runciman is of the opinion that myself, this site and the freedoms it allows you in terms of being able to hold the RAAus board accountable by its members here brings the RAAus into disrepute so he says I am not allowed to fly because of it.

 

But Chris, how can a person pass up on such a good recommendation like that from Nev...stay tuned but I am sorry that members hard earned money in membership fees are most likely going to end up being used in the fight to stop me from flying.

 

 

[robinsm]

Where does Runciman get the idea that he runs Raa-aus. He is an elected rep and can be voted out. I thought this was about flying not bloody politics. What does the board say in this matter.?

 

 

[bushpilot]

Hi Ian - Gee, sorry to hear that. I guess I must have my head in the sand in the sense that I was unaware that u had those issues running. All I can say is that prima facia it seems odd that the RAA can link commentary against them to licence issue / renewal, regardless of the constitution.. That would be like the RTA / VicRoads saying because someone says they dont manage themselves well, they wont give them a drivers licence.. (And whilst the structure is quite different, they are ultimately put into office by the constituency).

 

 

[Admin]

I believe that again the Board had no idea of the letter from Steven Runciman to myself, furthermore the letter even says that all correspondence in regards to this matter should go directly to him...I was under the impression that the"normal" manner of correspondence would be by way of the Secretary. I believe the Board is going to have a look at it towards the end of September...I wonder how a persons membership can be denied by just the President and then that person has to wait so long before anything can be done...if anything at all outside of legal action

 

 

[robinsm]

I look forward to the day when our organization stops acting like a secretive boys club at the top end and becomes open and transparent in all dealings with its members. Personal vendettas and prima donna behaviour from the top elected, and appointed management seem a little childish. What is the stance of the CEO in all this. He has been very quiet re any involvement.

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Where does Runciman get the idea that he runs Raa-aus. He is an elected rep and can be voted out. I thought this was about flying not bloody politics. What does the board say in this matter.?"

 

Well that's where you're wrong - it's about politics and not bloody flying.

 

Ian's information should be a red alert to all RAA members.

 

 

[winsor68]

Perhaps we could see a copy of the letter?

 

 

[Admin]

Soon mate soon...along with all the others including their legal threat (paid for by your membership fees) to sue me over your posts mate, but I have to be guided by legal advice

 

 

[facthunter]

Regardless of the intricacies of this, personal issues should not restrict right to Renewal? / membership. If it is good enough to treat Ian this way, it must apply to all members/ prospective members. Clearly then anybody with an issue with the organisation could be effectively silenced by denying them membership.

 

This site has not worked against recreational flying as it's goal. In fact it would have a positive effect on it, both on safety issues and management improvement. Some contributions may be taken individually at times as anti the RAAus. So what? Are they that perfect that they can't learn something or do things better.

 

If Tizzard is spending members money on threats of litigation then it would have to be established without doubt, that it wasn't a personal matter rather than an expense that should be incurred for the benefit of the organisation. Clearly Tizzard and Baker don't see it eye to eye. That's no reason to make the organisation look foolish, probably break some law in denial of natural justice to Ian ( and potentially anybody else they choose to find irritating/challenging.)

 

This action appears to be very ill-considered. Never establish a BAD precedent to attempt to address a single issue. It creates more problems that it fixes. Disagreeing with some of the actions of a board or person does not constitute bringing the organisation into disrepute. Perhaps this proposed action will do more to bring the organisation into disrepute, than Ian is supposed to have.

 

Prehaps my renewal is at threat too for writing this? It could be. Come on President and CEO . Behave like the titles you carry . Think BIG and move on to the real things that matter. Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

I am truly appalled... This BS has got to stop. Are the Executive going to refuse anyone who has a beef with the organization membership and thus flying privileges?!!!

 

 

[facthunter]

It is wise to hear both sides of the matter, and a basic principle of fairness. No-one would dispute that. I have never liked airing dirty washing either and insist that the truth be available before getting all worked up. In fact I don't think we should try to get worked up at all. We should DEAL with things and discuss them..

 

Met. If I, you or anyone was treated in a bad way (allegedly) by the organisation most of us need and want to run well, I would support your right to tell us here. All I have ever asked on this forum, is not to over react or pass on untruths, just to stir the pot and have a go at RAAus for malicious purposes. I don't wear that concept at all.. Nev

 

 

[Admin]

We always seem to go down this track, instigated by the odd person to cause conflict, but there will always only be one side of a story here and that will remain so unless other sides are willing to respond. However, taking the approach that you would have everyone do, and not say anything because it is one side of a story, will make us all oblivious to what really goes on, sort of "I'm alright mate, stuff you" and when a fellow aviator does need help, they will fear responses such as yours and choose to suffer in silence. The day will always come when you will need help and for someone to say to you that what you are saying is only one side of the story then you may then realise that the whole purpose of this site was not to treat you as a mushroom and make you suffer in silence, but rather band together to support each other...what ever our needs may be, right or wrong.

 

When a user here says for example their Jabiru engine blew up because of xyz, then that is one side of a story. When a person says I crashed because of abc, then again that is only one side of a story...do we not say a darn thing because what ever we say will ALWAYS be one side of "a" story...the side from the person telling the story...hell, I may as well close this site, and we all throw our PCs away and go and sit in a court room, the only place where 2 sides of a story will always be presented and then judged on and a verdict given...and even then is the verdict correct, innocent people have been hung.

 

It all comes down to the individual taking on board what they choose to and not being told by someone else trying to start conflict on what a person should or shouldn't believe

 

 

[turboplanner]

we only have one side of the story, the board ,and rightly so ,doesn't use this or any forum for public debate or attacks. But we've all read plenty of attacks both against the RAA and against the various board members personally. Something I've found quite interesting, my own dissatisfaction with RAA has a direct relation to the time I spend on forums, if I spend time flying then the problems seem to be a lot less dramatic, if I spend all day behind aa PC screen then I suddenly start to fear for my flying privileges! The RAA is what we got and although I agree with the tweaking on the regs I don't think the constant bagging and threats of "legal" proof is doing anything to promote flying! As it stands I will go out tomorrow and fly a plane,,,I'll do the same next week and will keep doing it till I don't, and in spite of the "henny penny " behavior RAA will continue to exist because CASA wants it to ,and the moment they don't it will stop ,and that will have nothing to do with the management of RAA but rather CASA will take take control or some other organization will come to the fore( unlikely). The big problem with rules is that they can often bite you on the ass , like I started with ,I have only heard one side of the issue!Met

The story we all have, posted here, from Ian, is that Steve Runciman says Ian is not allowed to fly because of an issues between RAA and this site [ie not a flying or regulation issue], and that was related in a letter from Steve Runciman to Ian, saying all correspondence should go to Steve Runciman.

 

Yes it is one side of a story, but not one side of basic principles of due process.

 

 

[Powerin]

I would guess this is the rule they are using....note that it says "board" so my interpretation would be it needs a board vote to refuse membership. No membership - no fly.

 

BY-LAW No. 12THE BOARD MAY REJECT AN APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP

Implemented September 2007

 

The board may reject an application for membership where the applicant’s previous

 

history indicates his/her behaviour has the potential to bring the RA-Aus into disrepute.

That's a pretty powerful by-law. Once you are actually a member the constitution provides for an appeals process before you can be kicked out.

 

 

[facthunter]

An existing member has more rights ( to appeal) than someone wanting to become a member. Ian has been a member for many years but unable recently to exercise his flying privileges due to a medical condition, so I presume he would wait for confirmation that he was fit to fly before rejoining. The existance of this site has annoyed the RAAus hierarchy. Whether that should be a bargaining chip is a matter for conjecture. I do not know whether it is but I would imagine that Ian could negotiate his way back in IF he did certain things, one of which would be to close it down. This is all supposition on my part but it fits. Whether Ian would be anymore of a potential to bring the RAAus into disrepute as a member or not a member is hard to fathom. We are talking about "potential" How do you assess that. Running a site like this or any other site COULD be regarded as a potential threat, but so is Pprune. Ian currently cannot progress his retraining. Would you want this site closed down under such circumstances. I may be way off on this but I am sure I will be corrected, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

I think this is THE big one.

 

 

[facthunter]

Looking at the board as currently constituted , it would hardly be likely to support Ian, so an adverse outcome could be anticipated. This view( mine, not the boards) can be challenged , but what do others think? This is not an easy matter or a pleasant one, so give it some thought.. You don't necessarily get winners out of this . That is why I feel the matter should not be proceeded with in it's current direction. Why? There is too much chance of damage . Risk management is not being applied here.

 

Note.. This is entirely MY view. It (the principle) would be the same if it wasn't Ian involved. The personalities should not be the issue, and we should never have arrived at this point. Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

Looking at the board as currently constituted , it would hardly be likely to support Ian, so an adverse outcome could be anticipated. This view can be challenged , but what do others think? Nev

Perhaps true... but IMO the membership as a whole is highly, highly unlikely to support a situation where the executive/board can refuse to issue someone membership... IMO this was not the intent of the constitution and not what we elect our members for regardless of how tough the job is.

This action IMO ,regardless of anyone's opinion of Ian, this site, other parties or the whole damn little saga that has played out on the sidelines over the last few years, should be of concern to us all.

 

 

[poteroo]

I would guess this is the rule they are using....note that it says "board" so my interpretation would be it needs a board vote to refuse membership. No membership - no fly.That's a pretty powerful by-law. Once you are actually a member the constitution provides for an appeals process before you can be kicked out.

It's all centered on that word potential. It smacks of the now infamous precautionary principle, where all useful activity grinds to a halt because there's a potential to cause disrepute, (=harm).. Just what this involves is a moot point. Sometimes there's a very long bow drawn in these matters, and it usually requires a neutral party to sort it.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Powerin]

On the one hand it is a useful by-law as it gives the board the power to reject someone with a reputation of being a reckless pilot, for example, or perhaps a violent criminal record and that's probably good for all of us. But it also has huge potential for abuse if members of the board have an axe to grind. As always, there is a big responsibility for us members to vote for the right people to serve on the board....and remove them if they don't perform.

 

Also, don't forget to vote for or against the proposed changes to the constitution, one of which, if passed, will limit the power of the board to make unannounced changes to existing by-laws.

 

 

[robinsm]

I notice that input from identified board members is a little thin o0n the ground. If the situation is sub judicae then fine, but please, someone from the other side enlighten us and lets put this puppy to bed. Ian owns this site and as such can post whatever he likes. I feel this site has done tremendous good for the sport and cannot figure what the hell the powers to be have a problem with. If I was in a position of elected responsibility, surely it would be in my interest, and the interest of the membership to have the FACTS out in the open so any accusations of collusion, hidden agenda's, cronyism or other garbage could be dealt with in the proper manner. Ian, can I suggest that your lawyer consider his advice and allow you to put your side fully to the members of this forum and I call on the management of Raa-aus to do so as well, if not in this forum, then on the Raa-aus website so that things like this will not fester and detract from the joy that many people have with this sport.

 

I believe, overall that Raa-aus is reasonably well run by the day to day staff and the elected members of our board, I am still flying, my aircraft is registered and the office staff polite and helpful.

 

Please people, Raa-Aus is not a vehicle for your plans of world domination, screwing your enemies or an avenue for your own aggrandizement, it is an organization of like minded people who are (or should be) interested in flying, manufacturing and generally being around recreational aircraft of ALL types.

 

Lets cut the crap, get this out in the open, settled, and move on.

 

 

[planedriver]

My God!

 

I hope he's not another bloody "Ranger". We've had more than enough with the other one.

 

Keep your chin up Ian, the next elections should sort them out, in both cases.

 

Kind Rgds

 

Planey

 

PS. Can he ban me too?

 

 

[robinsm]

whats a ranger?

 

 

[winsor68]

I imagine when we apply for membership (or renewal) that our paper work is processed by the general office staff... Are membership applications or renewals generally handled by the president or is there a procedure to identify "troublemakers" ?

 

I find the whole process interesting.