RAAus stopping membership

[turboplanner]

You make a good point Win it almost seems he was being "watched"

 

Most of the RAA members on here would be able to make a judgement themselves on whether Ian has brought disrepute to RAA.

 

I'd be very surprised if anyone thought he had.

 

Although RAA has ample resources to advise members of any accusations, it seems members are in the dark.

 

Softening up a perceived competitor (an I'm giving a hypothetical here, not suggesting anyone is doing this), is not in the Association's rules, so anyone doing that could be putting themselves and their Association at risk.

 

Under normal circumstances, when a member appears to be treated unfairly or elected officials appear to be getting out of line, the members can call a meeting and require elected officials to explain their actions.

 

If an explanation is not forthcoming or not satisfactory, then a member can move a resolution of no confidence in the official and provided it is seconded and approved by a majority in the meeting and complies with the Associations Rules, he's out and the Association moves on in a more democratic way.

 

This isn't feasible in RAA at present, as Andy has explained to you, and that's why it is so very important that this time you don't just sit back, but read carefully what Andy has said, and his explanations, then stand up and do something.

 

 

[Admin]

A few weeks ago I phoned the office and asked to renew my membership. The staff member asked me for my name and number, there was a pause and then she asked me to hold on and I was put on hold. When she returned she took my credit card details and asked if I had flown in the last 12 months...that was it

 

A couple of days later I noticed the payment had not gone through my account. I phoned the office and asked about this and I was asked to hold. When the office girl returned she said that there are people away with the Flu so things are taking longer.

 

A few days later I received the letter from Steven Runciman which I passed on to my solicitor.

 

A couple of people who have posted in this thread have now seen the letter from Steven Runciman and a first draft of the solicitors letter but that is all. This IS big and has many ramifications not just for me but ultimately for EVERY RAAus member and therefore I must be guided by legal advice on what gets disclosed where and when to ensure this doesn't get tried on any other member again.

 

 

[Admin]

I know a lot of people have seen the letter but for the odd few that haven't, here is "my" letter to RAAus about getting my licence back:

 

G'day Mate, I am writing to you because I need your help to get me bloody pilot's licence back. You keep telling me you got all the right contacts. Well now's your chance to make something happen for me because, mate, I'm bloody desperate.

 

But first, I'd better tell you what happened during my last flight review with the CAA Examiner.

 

On the phone, Ron (that's the CAA d*#"head), seemed a reasonable sort of a bloke. He politely reminded me of the need to do a flight review every two years. He even offered to drive out, have a look over my property and let me operate from my own strip. Naturally I agreed to that.

 

Anyway, Ron turned up last Wednesday. First up, he said he was a bit surprised to see the plane on a small strip outside my homestead, because the " ALA "(Authorized Landing Area), is about a mile away. I explained that because this strip was so close to the homestead, it was more convenient than the "ALA," and despite the power lines crossing about midway down the strip, it's really not a problem to land and take-off, because at the halfway point down the strip you're usually still on the ground.

 

For some reason Ron, seemed nervous. So, although I had done the pre-flight inspection only four days earlier, I decided to do it all over again.

 

Because the prick was watching me carefully, I walked around the plane three times instead of my usual two. My effort was rewarded because the colour finally returned to Ron's cheeks.

 

In fact, they went a bright red. In view of Ron's obviously better mood, I told him I was going to combine the test flight with some farm work, as I had to deliver three "poddy calves" from the home paddock to the main herd.

 

After a bit of a chase I finally caught the calves and threw them into the back of the ol' Cessna 172. We climbed aboard but Ron, started getting onto me about weight and balance calculations and all that crap.

 

Of course I knew that sort of thing was a waste of time because calves, like to move around a bit particularly when they see themselves 500-feet off the ground! So, it's bloody pointless trying to secure them as you know.

 

However, I did tell Ron that he shouldn't worry as I always keep the trim wheel set on neutral to ensure we remain pretty stable at all stages throughout the flight.

 

Anyway, I started the engine and cleverly minimized the warm-up time by tramping hard on the brakes and gunning her to 2,500 RPM. I then discovered that Ron has very acute hearing, even though he was wearing a bloody headset.

 

Through all that noise he detected a metallic rattle and demanded I account for it. Actually it began about a month ago and was caused by a screwdriver that fell down a hole in the floor and lodged in the fuel selector mechanism.

 

The selector can't be moved now, but it doesn't matter because it's jammed on "All tanks," so I suppose that's Okay.

 

However, as Ron was obviously a nit-picker, I blamed the noise on vibration from a stainless steel thermos flask which I keep in a beaut little possie between the windshield and the magnetic compass.

 

My explanation seemed to relax Ron, because he slumped back in the seat and kept looking up at the ****pit roof. I released the brakes to taxi out, but unfortunately the plane gave a leap and spun to the right. "Hell" I thought," not the starboard wheel chock again."

 

The bump jolted Ron back to full alertness. He looked around just in time to see a rock thrown by the prop-wash disappear completely through the windscreen of his brand new Commodore. "Now I'm really in trouble," I thought...

 

While Ron was busy ranting about his car, I ignored his requirement that we taxi to the " ALA ," and instead took off under the power lines. Ron didn't say a word, at least not until the engine started coughing right at the lift off point, and then he bloody screamed > his head off. "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" "Now take it easy Ron," I told him firmly. "That often happens on take-off and there is a good reason for it."

 

I explained patiently that I usually run the plane on standard MOGAS, but one day I accidentally put in a gallon or two of kerosene. To compensate for the low octane of the kerosene, I siphoned in a few gallons of super MOGAS and shook the wings up and down a few times to mix it up.

 

Since then, the engine has been coughing a bit but in general it works just fine, if you know how to coax it properly. Anyway, at this stage Ron seemed to lose all interest in my test flight.

 

He pulled out some rosary beads, closed his eyes and became lost in prayer. (I didn't think anyone was a Catholic these days) I selected some nice music on the HF radio to help him relax.

 

Meanwhile, I climbed to my normal cruising altitude of 10,500-feet. I don't normally put in a flight plan or get the weather because, as you know getting FAX access out here is a friggin' joke and the weather is always "8/8 blue" anyway.

 

But since I had that near miss with a Saab 340, I might have to change me thinking on that.

 

Anyhow, on levelling out, I noticed some wild camels heading into my improved pasture.

 

I hate bloody camels, and always carry a loaded 303, clipped inside the door of the Cessna just in case I see any of the bastards. We were too high to hit them, but as a matter of principle, I decided to have a go through the open window.

 

Mate, when I pulled the bloody rifle out, the effect on Ron, was friggin electric. As I fired the first shot his neck lengthened by about six inches and his eyes bulged like a rabbit with myxo. He really looked as if he had been jabbed with an electric cattle prod on full power.

 

In fact, Ron's reaction was so distracting that I lost concentration for a second and the next shot went straight through the port tyre. Ron was a bit upset about the shooting (probably one of those pinko animal lovers I guess) so I decided not to tell him about our little problem with the tyre.

 

Shortly afterwards I located the main herd and decided to do my fighter pilot trick. Ron had gone back to praying when, in one smooth sequence, I pulled on full flaps, cut the power and started a sideslip from 10,500-feet down to 500-feet at 130, knots indicated (the last time I looked anyway) and the little needle rushed up to the red area on me ASI.

 

What a buzz, mate! About half way through the descent I looked back in the cabin to see the calves gracefully suspended in mid air and mooing like crazy. I was going to comment to Ron on this unusual sight, but he looked a bit green and had rolled himself into the foetal position and was screaming' his 'freakin' head off.

 

Mate, talk about being in a bloody zoo. You should've been there, it was so bloody funny! At about 500-feet I levelled out, but for some reason we kept sinking. When we reached 50-feet, I applied full power but nothing happened. No noise no nothin'.

 

Then, luckily, I heard me instructor's voice in me head saying "carb heat, carb heat." So I pulled carb heat on and that helped quite a lot, with the engine finally regaining full power. Whew, that was really close, let me tell you!

 

Then mate, you'll never guess what happened next! As luck would have it, at that height we flew into a massive dust cloud caused by the cattle and suddenly went I.F. bloody R, mate.

 

You would have been really proud of me as I didn't panic once, not once, but I did make a mental note to consider an instrument rating as soon as me gyro is repaired (something I've been meaning to do for a while now).

 

Suddenly Ron's elongated neck and bulging eyes reappeared. His Mouth opened very wide, but no sound emerged. "Take it easy," I told him, "we'll be out of this in a minute."

 

Sure enough, about a minute later we emerged, still straight and level and still at 50-feet. Admittedly I was surprised to notice that we were upside down, and I kept thinking to myself, "I hope Ron didn't notice that I had forgotten to set the QNH when we were taxiing."

 

This minor tribulation forced me to fly to a nearby valley in which I had to do a half roll to get upright again. By now the main herd had divided into two groups leaving a narrow strip between them. "Ah!" I thought, "there's an omen. We'll land right there."

 

Knowing that the tyre problem demanded a slow approach, I flew a couple of steep turns with full flap. Soon the stall warning horn was blaring so loud in me ear that I cut it's circuit breaker to shut it up. but by then I knew we were slow enough anyway.

 

I turned steeply onto a 75-foot final and put her down with a real thud. Strangely enough, I had always thought you could only ground loop in a tail dragger but, as usual, I was proved wrong again!

 

Halfway through our third loop, Ron at last recovered his sense of humour. Talk about laugh. I've never seen the likes of it. He couldn't stop. We finally rolled to a halt and I released the calves, who bolted out of the aircraft like there was no tomorrow.

 

I then began picking clumps of dry grass. Between gut wrenching fits of laughter, Ron asked what I was doing. I explained that we had to stuff the port tyre with grass so we could fly back to the homestead.

 

It was then that Ron, really lost the plot and started running away from the aircraft. Can you believe it? I saw him running off into the distance, arms flailing in the air and still shrieking with laughter.

 

I later heard that he had been confined to a psychiatric institution - poor bugger!

 

Anyhow mate, that's enough about Ron. The problem is I got this letter from CASA withdrawing, as they put it, my privileges to fly; until I have undergone a complete pilot training course again and undertaken another flight proficiency test.

 

Now I admit that I made a mistake in taxiing over the wheel chock and not setting the QNH using strip elevation, but I can't see what else I did that was a so bloody bad that they have to withdraw me flamin' license. Can you?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good to inject some humour into a situation which requires an external Inquiry.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ian

 

For clarity can you identify if:-

 

1) your renewal was made at a time that you were a member (and therefore would for the purposes of the rules be considered truely a renewal)

 

2) or was the renewal made at a time that you were no longer financial (and therefore for the purpose of the rules be considered a new membership application)

 

It would seem that determining wether 1) or 2) applied would be pretty important to work out if things are being done IAW the rules as they stand today, or wether the actions are being taken outside the rules.

 

If its the case that 2) applied then the road to becoming a member is likely more complicated and difficult than if 1) applied I would have thought.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

Andy, I simply let my membership lapse, I didn't renew it as there was no point till my health was certain again.

 

 

[winsor68]

I think regardless of whether the rules are being followed... the problem is the rules are not IMO written in the spirit of this sort of action.

 

 

[Admin]

Personally I don't think they have thought through all the ramifications of this and what the end result will be...and that is the real pity

 

 

[planedriver]

whats a ranger?

A red-head like the Prime Minister,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Her decisions are always somewhat questionable too.

Sorry it went over your head,

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, I simply let my membership lapse, I didn't renew it as there was no point till my health was certain again.

Ian, I certainly wasnt judging you, or anyone else, I just wanted to understand if the actions were taken in the context of a true renewal, or a new membership. You, myself and others would in general terms talk about this as a renewal, yet that probably isnt an accurate use of the term in this context.

 

Win, "The Spirit" you talk of is fundamentally whether your interpretation of the rules aligns with the commitees interpretation. The correct process for determining that will likely be through mediation, arbitration, or plain old civil legal action when looking at Ians and the comittee interaction.

 

In the event that the membership doesnt like the rules (as distinct from doesnt like the commitee) then the process for changing them so that subsequen interpretation would not deliver teh same outcome as we have at present, is through the use of a special resolution at an AGM or any other GM that is called. That process, if the current SR that Don, David and myself are putting forward is adopted, will allow rule change to take place in 7 months, if it fails then 13 months hence is the first opportunity to change.

 

regards

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

Isn't the question here about the way the rule is applied. Ian has had severe disagreements with probably one person in particular. (I, incidently am not privy to any letter ).

 

The way I see it, it is this breakdown of relationship , which is being used to get back at him, force him to divest himself of this site or whatever. IF Ian has really done anything to damage the RAAus then he should answer for it. I believe this action and other actions that should never have been done to discredit Ian are personal more than structural and this rule should not be inappropriately used, as it appears to be. It sets a ridiculous precedent as well. I reserve the right to have as big a dispute as may be recessary without fearing retribution of this kind. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Isn't the question here about the way the rule is applied. Ian has had severe disagreements with probably one person in particular. (I, incidently am not privy to any letter ).The way I see it, it is this breakdown of relationship , which is being used to get back at him, force him to divest himself of this site or whatever. IF Ian has really done anything to damage the RAAus then he should answer for it. I believe this action and other actions that should never have been done to discredit Ian are personal more than structural and this rule should not be inappropriately used, as it appears to be. It sets a ridiculous precedent as well. I reserve the right to have as big a dispute as may be recessary without fearing retribution of this kind. Nev

Nev

 

I believe that what you are describing is best described as "Natural Justice" or the Duty to act fairly, in this case, within an incorporated association. If you google natural justice, limiting results to australian webpages (so as to not confuse the issue with results reflecting non australian jurisdictions) you can get a clear view as to what our organisations responsibilities are. To me, any decision made by the commitee which has the potential to damage a member or potential member must surely be tested against "Natural justice" concepts before being acted upon.

 

Again, I dont have visibility of anything other than what has been produce here and on other similar australia flying forums on this particular issue and Im surely not taking one side or the other, just putting concepts forward that should probably IMHO be foremost in peoples minds as they make these decisions, or as they react to decisions others have made.

 

Andy

 

 

[robinsm]

I think you mean Ranga as in o ranga tan dont you??

 

 

[Admin]

I wonder, if Steven Runciman, and the board for that matter, are found to have initiated this action not only illegally but as a result, cause an enormous amount of shall I just say issues for the RAAus, can they then be individually brought up as bringing the RAAus into disrepute based on their ill thought out actions or do they, unlike everyone else, get indemnity under the disguise of discharging their duties of office?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Step 1 is you are entitled to be advised the full reasons and details of any action.

 

Then the lawyers can decide appropriate actions under the various Acts, two of which include Prosecution.

 

 

[David Isaac]

It would appear on the strength of the information so far that the President's action in delaying Ian's new application for membership (Ian's membership had lapsed more than 3 months) and the unproven allegations made by the President personally in relation to 'bringing the RA Aus into disrepute' were done so without the knowledge of the Board.

 

There can be no winner here, this is incredibly unwise behaviour, and certainly has the 'look' of a vendetta.

 

Maybe this kind of behavior needs exposing, the constitution makes it very clear that the President and the executive can only act on behalf of the Board and only with the Board's approval. They cannot make personal decisions and put in writing as if acting on behalf of the Board in the absence of Board approval.

 

Regards,

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's why it would be wise to follow strict legal procedures a step at a time.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Hmm....Ian had a current membership while running this site. Let the membership lapse, attempted to renew and was knocked back. Surely if this site was bringing RAA into disrepute, then there was a time to take up this matter with Ian in the past. Or do they (used in the general sense, substitute for "he" if appropriate) now have to explain why the site is fundamentally different now and currently causes disrepute, when it didn't cause disrepute previously?

 

I'll echo what others like Nev have said - this won't end well for RAA and it's members irrespective of what happens. Good luck with it though Ian, I know that I would be pretty disappointed if someone decided to take away my privileges too.

 

 

[Admin]

I can now advise that legal action has commenced with regards to this so I want to take this opportunity to personally apologise to all RAAus members that their membership fees will no doubt be spent by the RAAus Board to pay for the costs of RAAus to pursue their action in stopping me from being an RAAus member and therefore preventing me from flying a recreational aviation aircraft, of which I was certified to do and have always done so without conducting any illegal flying or jeopardising anyone's safety, but also all my costs plus damages that they have caused in this very very silly action that they (or he if appropriate) started.

 

So it is now down to the RAAus Board to realise this and immediately take my membership or explain to the members how they feel that spending their own membership fees in this way will benefit them at all

 

 

[shags_j]

can't believe how angry this makes me... (Not you Ian, the actions of the board). You have my support Ian.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ian

 

When you say you have commenced Legal action are you saying 1) you have instructed a solicitor to commence a civil action in the courts? or are you saying that 2) you are presently communicating with the board via a series of solicitors letter(s).

 

The 2 are, as I have said before in previous threads, vastly different. The first is what I would consider would happen in the event that a decision has been made, and you cannot accept. The second is to me the expected banter that occurs while the process of making a decision is occuring.

 

The point of clarity Im seeking is that in the event of 1) you are absolutely right this will cost the RAA members money . However if 2) this wont cost anything to the membership because if the RAA committee is following the principles of natural justice then they would expect a letter from you or your solicitor in order to ensure fairness and follow a normal process. IMHO if this is 2) then its healthy and right that the organisation and you go through this process (thats the process, not necessarily what triggered the process) . If 1) then it isnt healthy and something has gone wrong and everybody will loose, some more than others and it remains to see who the biggest looser will be.....

 

Again, Im not personally siding with anyone just want absolute clarity in what is said, and what people then understand that to mean. To me if 2) above then RAA members should not be overly alarmed (again Im talking about the process not necessarily the reason the process is occuring) , but watch carefully to see what occurs, if its 1) and your an RAA member then if you have a view best you ring your representative and make them aware of your thoughts. They cant represent what they are not aware of.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

Andy, the case is 1 in that legal action has commenced by way of legal representation obtained who have responded to RAAus on my behalf. Why it will no doubt mean the commencement of member's funds being used is that RAAus will no doubt now obtain legal consult thus immediately incurring RAAus legal fees paid for by membership money...they can however just drop it and advise my solicitor that they will accept my membership in which case no expenditure of member's money would be used...bar the cost of an envelop and postage stamp, and this matter is concluded, but that is now up to them hence why I said that if they don't take this option then "explain to the members how they feel that spending their own membership fees in this way will benefit them at all"

 

The choice now lies with RAAus on how much of your membership fees they are going to spend...once they start then they run the risk of losing a lot of your money in not only their own costs but cover mine along with damages as well.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Andy is right - everyone who is a member and has an opinion should right now be ringing their reps and getting it across.

 

If Ian has retained legal representation, then it is only natural to go for costs and damages. The likelihood of it ending up in court may not be that high due to the prohibitive costs on both sides, but one thing is for sure. This will be paid for by members funds in one way or another, and if members would like to see a speedy and less costly resolution, then it would be best if they started saying so formally.

 

As I've said before, good luck Ian. I've been in a protracted legal battle regarding trademarks before, and it isn't a nice place to be.

 

Edit: Ian answered regarding representation....

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's best not to speculate on the merits of the case from this point

 

 

[facthunter]

One thing that appears perfectly clear is that some resolution of it is needed, sooner rather than later. We all need to know what the rules are. Nev