RAAus stopping membership

[kaz3g]

I should mention also that all Board Members read this forum these days...in the past ...they ignored it,,

It is a sad reflection of the state of things if that is indeed the case. Not because what is said here is private or might be misconceived but because of the lost opportunity for constructive dialogue between those board members and a very significant number of association members.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

.......................There were and are absolutely no winners here and I would just love to listen to the reasons the individuals involved would give to the members to justify their actions.

Regards,

I've got a dollar says you're not going to get to hear that David.

 

A/ Steve Runciman won't be there, and,

 

B/ You won't be there.

 

So it's a pretty safe bet, eh?

 

Having said that, and all jokes aside, I suspect whoever has the chair at this coming AGM is gunna have their work cut out. Fore there're some bloody serious quesions to be answered... And from what I'm hearing on the ground, I don't think platitudes, or a motion to table, are gunna cut it this time...

 

 

 

[David Isaac]

David...interesting to read your words...Can't see much changing in the immediate future.

Tassie has one position on the Board...unless the incumbent resigns...who would put their hand up with any chance of winning..?

Phil.

Regrettably I believe you are correct in that view.

 

Since I have been labelled as 'that outspoken person' by a current Board member in reference to my involvement at the meeting of members at Temora in 2011 I might as well continue, after all it is my association as well as yours. Someone has to throw the challenges out there, we can either rise to them or divulve into abuse and vitriol, hopefully the former.

 

It is my personal opinion that some Board members are just along for the ride and that there appear to be few possessing the professional aptitude to validly hold the position. But then again who in their right mind would put their hand up to join the Board when IMHO the Board appear to ignore our Constitution, appear to enact inappropriate provisions, don’t appear to enforce proper process and appear to allow the CEO to run off in any direction he chooses … a new competent person may never get support and may need to resign (as two eminently competent Board members did recently) otherwise suffer the possible consequences of an incompetent Board. Perhaps my criticism is a little strong; you be the judge of that. Public positions by their nature are subject to public scrutiny.

 

We are about to see a number of new members join the Board and hopefully some constitutional changes that will put the power back into the hands of the members to hold the Board accountable at at least one extra meeting a year. Alternatively the members can force the board to a general meeting called for the purposes as directed if there is a reasonable amount of support to do so. I wonder whether this will see a different response by the incumbent members of the Board. The Board has a lot of explaining to do at the AGM, just like they did at Temora in 2011, how much of the explanation will be transparent and how much will just be platitudes. Pity I wont be there.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Phil.Regrettably I believe you are correct in that view.

Since I have been labelled as 'that outspoken person' by a current Board member in reference to my involvement at the meeting of members at Temora in 2011 I might as well continue, after all it is my association as well as yours. Someone has to throw the challenges out there, we can either rise to them or divulve into abuse and vitriol, hopefully the former.

 

It is my personal opinion that some Board members are just along for the ride and that there appear to be few possessing the professional aptitude to validly hold the position. But then again who in their right mind would put their hand up to join the Board when IMHO the Board appear to ignore our Constitution, appear to enact inappropriate provisions, don’t appear to enforce proper process and appear to allow the CEO to run off in any direction he chooses … a new competent person may never get support and may need to resign (as two eminently competent Board members did recently) otherwise suffer the possible consequences of an incompetent Board. Perhaps my criticism is a little strong; you be the judge of that. Public positions by their nature are subject to public scrutiny.

 

We are about to see a number of new members join the Board and hopefully some constitutional changes that will put the power back into the hands of the members to hold the Board accountable at at least one extra meeting a year. Alternatively the members can force the board to a general meeting called for the purposes as directed if there is a reasonable amount of support to do so. I wonder whether this will see a different response by the incumbent members of the Board. The Board has a lot of explaining to do at the AGM, just like they did at Temora in 2011, how much of the explanation will be transparent and how much will just be platitudes. Pity I wont be there.

 

Regards,

Hear hear... So I'll say again...

 

I've got a dollar says you're not going to get to hear that David.A/ Steve Runciman won't be there, and,

B/ You won't be there.

 

So it's a pretty safe bet, eh?

 

Having said that, and all jokes aside, I suspect whoever has the chair at this coming AGM is gunna have their work cut out. Fore there're some bloody serious quesions to be answered... And from what I'm hearing on the ground, I don't think platitudes, or a motion to table, are gunna cut it this time...

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

Today, in reference to the BVSAC newsletter stuff I posted earlier I sought and recieved what is puported to be the Zane Tully / CEO Tizzard letter to the NSW coroner. In reading the points made in that letter the point about strict Liability has taken a twist in this forum well beyond anything that was actually said in that letter.

 

In fact the point made was about educating the RAA membership of the application of Strict Liability in flying as a result of a pilot failing to meet the legislated position set by CASA. There was nothing said about RAA wanting to be able to impose fines etc.

 

I make this correction so that the debate is fair and reasonable.

 

I do not however stand away from my claim that the operations team should not have sent such a letter (if they did) to the coroner without the absolute agreement of the total board that they could do so.

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

...... I would ask that if the board did decide to respond as publicly as they've been attacked on this forum would they be allowed to, as this is a privately owned site and the owner is at the centre of the sh!t fight, would allegations leveled at Ian Baker actually be allowed?Met

valid point Matt, but I prefer to use the words criticised or challenged rather than 'attacked'. Individual members can always respond appropriately without it even needing to be leveled at Ian Baker. Most of the criticisms here are leveled by the members of the forum and only in the interests general of the members, at least that has always been my intention.

 

 

[Admin]

I would ask that if the board did decide to respond as publicly as they've been attacked on this forum would they be allowed to, as this is a privately owned site and the owner is at the centre of the sh!t fight, would allegations leveled at Ian Baker actually be allowed?

Most likely NO as they don't pay for the site nor do they do anything to support it and as seen over the many years they have done nothing but attack it and me personally in every way they could, so they have lost that privilege...however, I have offered to one board member, just yesterday, that when, and only when, Steve Runciman, Paul Middleton and Eugene Reid resign from the RAAus board and Steve Tizzard from the RAAus, for their part in recent events, I offered and will gladly sit down and meet with the RAAus Board and hopefully we can nut out a great working relationship for the future between RAAus and this site for the betterment of recreational aviation in this country...I offered to them last October that we try and create a better working relationship but they did not even reply. Instead the email chain that proceeded that offer was again derogatory against me personally and this site by the likes of Steve Runciman. So in answer to your nasty undertone post, as you seem to be doing on this resource that I make available to you for absolutely free, I can say that this site has tried and tried and tried, over many many years to work with the RAAus under an understanding of some kind but they don't want to come out and play. So Metalman, it is obvious with the number of attempts I have made on behalf of this site to improve its working relationship with the RAAus you should be directing your hostilities to them rather then me personally or this site as you seem to do not only here but on other web sites as well.

I am assuming yet again that my offer will fall on deaf ears.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I should mention also that all Board Members read this forum these days...in the past ...they ignored it,,

That's good to know: I am glad to hear this bit of information. Does the President read this forum as well?

 

 

[winsor68]

That's good to know: I am glad to hear this bit of information. Does the President read this forum as well?

How do you think this whole mess came about?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Love your hairstyle 78

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Bugger the hairstyle... Have a go at EK's complextion... That's gotta be "Botox" don't it?... And that tarantula crawling across the cheek? Oh YUK...

 

 

 

[Admin]

If 78 to 80 Knots stopped spending money on the beauty therapy he may be able to change his Aircraft Type from "I want to build one but the budget is "short"" to "I may well be ugly but I have built an aircraft"

 

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

And yet the first thing the police do when they pull you over and explain the situation is to ask if you have a reason for speeding. If the approach was strict liability then that whole "why were you" would seem a sharade.Or have I missunderstood?

 

Andy

This is all part of the game to get you to admit that you were speeding! But I digress...

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

This "strict liability " is a huge worry, I hope it's not to late to stop it going to far

I would expect that any push for 'strict liability' is being pushed by CASA, it is already an integral part of aviation in Australia.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Love your hairstyle 78

With all that extra drag he will be flatout making 65!

 

 

[Methusala]

G'day all, I have followed this forum agenda when I have had the time and would like to ask a question of those posters who have excused Runciman's projected absence from the AGM. I would like to ask whether anyone knows the nature of his Defence job. It is true that some part of the Defence Force are "at the pointy end". However many are simply managers and administrators whose jobs can be covered by their peers. It rings a little falsely to me that at a time of acute personal embarrassment, the president is (perhaps too conveniently) MIA. I know that some will see this as a personal attack but I think it behooves the president to front up to answer members' questions. Don

 

 

[Admin]

I believe, but don't quote me on this as I haven't specifically asked him, but I am told he is in the Accounts Dep't

 

 

[Bandit12]

By avoiding it, the situation only gets worse. Better to just front up, make a public statement, tender resignation, or perhaps even all three if necessary.

 

 

[David Isaac]

In defense of Steve, I do not for a moment think he is one to shrink from a fight. I doubt he is avoiding anything.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well he is avoiding resigning.

 

 

[facthunter]

If they give up the fight, who will defeat the evil Ian and his adherants? This has gone on for 16 pages now. Needs some new information.

 

Whoever chairs a meeting is the one doing just that, Chairing it. He/she should be impartial and ensure a proper process is followed. People who want to make points or speak to them should not be in the chair . Any meeting should have the right to appoint it's own chair who by definition would be acceptable to the majority. The chair should be respected and unruly conduct is a waste of time and must not be allowed to influence outcomes. I can't see the point of expecting serious changes to eminate from "special" meetings at say, Natfly. unless they call for a structure or something to do something. This didn't seem to get far last time .

 

Any major proposed changes would have to be known to anybody attending, ot wanting to send a proxy, for them to carry any weight. Most people want Natfly to be a Flying event . Big changes have to be prepared and presented in a comprehensive form. It would be better to achieve them with co-operation and order than chaos..Nev

 

 

[Guest GraemeM]

I'm not directing hostilities , I only asked a question in reference to your stating that there would only ever be one side of the story "here" , as it stands we have only half the story, and as it turns out you weren't denied membership but rather ( as the letter states) but it was to be put before the board , regardless of whether you may have behaved inapropriatly at the Natfly events the board has been shown to be in trouble in that it doesn't seem they were involved in the first instance and further they weren't given the opportunity to vote on the issue at hand.This raises another question, is the "disrepute " rule of it self a bad thing, what if there is the situation where there is someone who is genuinely a crooked thing, should our association have the right to choose its members,,,,,is there a line ,,,pedofiles, murderers, deviates,,,,this IS NOT directed at anyone ,,,,should we have an open door policy?

"Deviates"? Well they let me join.

 

Graeme.

 

 

[winsor68]

,,,,should we have an open door policy?

Yes... IMO the only time there should be any recourse for discipline is in Flight Safety matters.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Whoever has the chair at this coming AGM is gunna have their work cut out. Fore there're some bloody serious quesions to be answered... And from what I'm hearing on the ground, I don't think platitudes, or a motion to table, are gunna cut it this time... Not that it won't be tried...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

G'day all, I have followed this forum agenda when I have had the time and would like to ask a question of those posters who have excused Runciman's projected absence from the AGM. I would like to ask whether anyone knows the nature of his Don, and others Defence job. It is true that some part of the Defence Force are "at the pointy end". However many are simply managers and administrators whose jobs can be covered by their peers. It rings a little falsely to me that at a time of acute personal embarrassment, the president is (perhaps too conveniently) MIA. I know that some will see this as a personal attack but I think it behooves the president to front up to answer members' questions. Don

Its been a few years since I was in the defence force but I doubt things have changed too much. Navy and Airforce have specialists who when not specialising can do general defence duties. Army has soldiers who when not being soldiers then do specialist things. Thee are the direct opposite ofeach other. A soldier is a soldier first and foremost and a specialist when circumstances allow. In the Navy and the Airforce we are specialist for the majority of the time. Steve is a soldier first and foremost and then I believe a Quartermaster (logistics specialist) after that. As he is based in Townsville he must by definition and location be close to the pointy end and certainly closer than if he was posted to Canberra or St Kilda Road for example.

 

I pick up the phone and speak to Steve when ever I feel I need to understand why aset of circumstances have happened as they have and/ or when I want to tell him I think that the decisions made are not in our best interests, and I wish you guys would too, he has extended an invitation to you to ring and discuss and despite some colourful language by some here I personally have found him polite and articulate on the phone. If concerned please pick up the phone and use it. You and Steve will both be the better for the interaction and then the discussion here might then well be closer to truth than pure speculation.

 

Like David I doubt Steve woud shrink from the AGM by choice.

 

Andy