RA-Aus Demise and CASA Takeover Due Member Apathy

[John G]

As cficare and fly_tornado have observed in the "RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again" thread the problem is APATHY!

 

Please read again what I posted on 23 September 2010. I just wish I could pick Lotto numbers with the same crystal ball and clarity. I wouldn't have to worry whether I can afford to keep flying.

 

The while sorry mess could have been avoided if apathy had not reigned supreme; but then it's the Australian way! More than 2 years ago I tried to alert members. I have been quiet since but the current situation dictates that we all need to do something! Or we just give up flying as we currently know it!

 

JG

 

My 23 September 2010 Post

 

"In fairness I have tried to stay neutral and let the "newbies" have a go before I waded back into the fray.

 

What is happening to our great organisation over recent times is not palatable to even the most apathetic member. We have seen our standing as an organisation diminish in recent times; CASA is re-asserting control and takeover designs on the most successful member aviation organisation to date. If they have their way we will go the way of GA and wither on the vine.

 

From the latest Board meeting I believe we will see an increase in fees and all manner of excuses on why the fees are justified. As members you will have noted a marked drop off in turn-around times and services offered. If you have been following some of the board member’s blogs then you will have seen that RA-Aus wages bill has exploded by several hundred percent while member services have declined

 

If you haven’t been offended and insulted by the latest offering by our CEO and President in our latest magazine then you have a thicker skin than I do.

 

No, I have no intention of running for office again! I can only handle being kicked in the guts once! But member apathy as I alluded to in my July 2008 President’s column has come to fruition. I have included that column below so that you don’t have to search through your old magazines. For more recent members who want to research some of the history read www.gardon.com.au

 

I have had my go and run out of steam; but I implore all members to take an active interest in your organisation and have a say otherwise we will end up like ALL other aviation organisations/clubs/ bodies in Australia in the past. Don’t say you were not warned when you lose your flying privileges! "

 

"reprint of President's Column July 2008"

 

The Good!

 

The Bad!

 

The Ugly!

 

Now who could I be talking about? ..Me ? .. You? ...You all? ....Us ?....RAAus?

 

If we were to stop and think about it we all go through phases in our lives where the heading describes us all. I would like you all to bear with me as I walk you through what I think are the strengths and weaknesses of our organisation and reflect on where we should be heading as an organisation.

 

The Good.

 

We are aviators that enjoy the spontaneity and freedom to fly for the pure FUN and enjoyment that has only been the realm of birds for centuries past. In just one hundred years we have seen the joy of flight turned from one of Joy, wonderment and exhilaration that should be shared to one of the most over regulated pursuits.

 

Fare paying passengers have an expectation of arriving at their destination without death or injury and therefore CASA rightly imposes a hefty regulatory oversight and burden on those that wish to carry passengers for payment.

 

We that fly for FUN also expect to enjoy our pursuit with an expectation of returning home to our families at the end of the day; and therefore some form of regulation is required to ensure sufficient margins of safety are included in the way we fly and maintain our aeroplanes.

 

The only way to achieve complete safety would be to keep all aircraft securely locked up in hangars or spend enormous sums of money on triple redundant systems that can only guarantee that risks are reduced to a more acceptable one in a million as in the passenger carrying world. RA-Aus members, as informed participants, are willing to accept a higher level of risk to be able to fly at an affordable cost by accepting responsibility to operate their aircraft within a reduced regulatory environment that requires their active participation in mitigating and reducing risk.

 

RA-Aus has benefited from a great many people contributing their expertise and time to develop skills and expertise in minimum flying over the years to develop recreational flying to where it is today. Peer development, supervision, oversight and acceptance of responsibility was the cornerstone that enabled the acceptance of recreational flying in the community. The lesson was quickly learned that irresponsible acts of a few could jeopardise the freedoms of the rest of the responsible flyers and peer summary justice was often swift against recalcitrant miscreant pilots.

 

The Bad

 

How many times in our own experiences have we seen clubs prosper and then suddenly disappear after a change of leadership and personality politics. The very things that make a club strong and vibrant can also conspire to bring about its undoing. The fact that a strong vibrant club can disappear overnight due to a well meaning individual is catastrophic for a small community. In time the club usually re-forms and re-builds with a lot of hard work and talented people to fill the void created by the previous collapse. Unfortunately in the “club environment “ willing workers contributing their skills in an honorary capacity do so to the point of burnout or until personal commitments prevent them from continuing on. Mix into this recipe, politics and personalities, we end up on a treadmill of boom and bust of many community based clubs.

 

The “flying club” structure has served RA-Aus extremely well in the past. Having a bunch of people with the same common goal of having FUN flying with minimal regulation and minimal cost was the genesis of the AUF/RA-Aus. In the early days, the fight to win the right to fly outside the established over regulated and costly options available at the time unified members who understood that joint acceptance of responsibility, sometimes at the expense of personal displays of exuberance, was essential for survival of the organisation so that ALL could continue to fly for FUN with a minimum of restrictions.

 

The flying freedoms won by our earlier members and pioneers have obviously been seen as attractive for an increasing number of pilots. We have seen an enviable increase in membership numbers, however with the increase comes new management challenges. Adding to these management challenges is the influx of members that are happy to accept the hard won privileges gained by previous members without accepting the co-commitment responsibilities.

 

The consequences of RA-Aus going out of business due to apathy or personality politics is unthinkable and a luxury we cannot afford. It has happened in other aviation organisations with terminal consequences. Traditionally when we hold elections we have less than 10% of the membership lodging a vote even though they are provided with a post paid envelope and pre-printed ballot paper. Poor member participation could be interpreted as good old Aussie apathy when members are happy with the status quo.

 

In a benign environment, apathy is not in itself debilitating but it does open the door to having the organisation hijacked by a vocal minority that may not have the experience and expertise to keep the organisation focussed on ensuring our continued access to safe affordable aviation with minimum of regulation.

 

The Ugly,

 

More and more as we grow we are seeing an increasing number of members that seem to think that the rules don’t apply to them or that they deserve special treatment. When they disagree with the umpire’s decision they resort to litigation that requires them and us spending huge sums on legal fees usually to achieve the same result. Organisations run along club or membership based rules are particularly vulnerable to renegade member exploitation using litigation.

 

Worst still, we have a very small percentage of members who engage in abusing our office staff when they are unhappy with a particular decision or outcome. Our office staff are some of the most dedicated and hardest working folk I have witnessed anywhere in the country. We cannot afford to have a small minority of unthinking members jeopardise the retention of our staff.

 

The Future?

 

It is not all gloomy! RA-Aus is a strong vibrant organisation that has a great spirit and member support that is witnessed at Natfly and all round the country every day and weekend where more people are out flying for FUN then ever before.

 

I hope that this column stimulates debate on whether a corporate structure would better protect our interests into the future as we continue to grow from our humble beginnings. No the Board and I do not have any plans to move in that direction, but I do want the members to give a long hard think of what they expect from RA-Aus and what are the threats to our survival into the future.

 

Have FUN flying and accept the co-commitment responsibilities that go with it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good to see your comments John, they may have burnt you, but they only have ashes to show for their own cooking.

 

 

[nomadpete]

John,

 

Please accept my apology for being one of the apathetic masses. I must accept my share of the collective blame for RAAus ending up where we are now. My only excuse is that I had no way of knowing who the candidates really were when the elections came up. Unless one has personal contact with the candidates it is impossible to make an informed decision at election time. So I took the easy way out and sat on the sidelines.

 

The present problem is "where do we go from here"?

 

Do we have any options? Are we left with CASA as our only guiding light/saviour?

 

PeterT

 

 

[David Isaac]

Pete,

 

We intend to call a general meeting of members. Keep an eye on the other thread 'RA Aus fails CASA audit' for details and keep in contact with your club if you are a member and hopefully the details will come out soon.

 

We are NOT going to let this issue die a natural death.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

J...... I had no way of knowing who the candidates really were when the elections came up. Unless one has personal contact with the candidates it is impossible to make an informed decision at election time. .......

I personally find that to be as true today as itwas back then.

 

And worse still it should not be.

 

Withoiut needing any fancy technology each candidate should be able to submit a video file to be hosted on the RAA wesite where they can take as long or short as they need to explain why we should vote for them. The current limitation on an A4 page (which shrinks down to 1/2 page in the magazine) is a function of the medieval technology we are using.

 

A video, is still only one way traffic though so why couldnt we host a scheduled Q&A video conference where members can ask the tough questions. Now some will say oh thats too hard...What B/S .....Any uni student these days who is an external student uses this type of capability for every lecture they attend. Its good and works well. If a Uni student can cope I cant see why a pilot couldnt cope. Its all web browser driven anyway....

 

The same technology could and should be used for board meetings in my opinion, and recorded for posterity. In fact other than tiimes where the board wants it "in camera" or actually out of camera, then why not make the recordings available for members.....The rumour mills will be silent because god forbid, we will know almost as much as the board knows.

 

A single paragraph per crisis on the news section of the RAA us website, written to appease rather than inform is NOT EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

 

Im guessing all of the above could be had for less than $2k pa extra...

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good points Andy, I can remember about 6 to 8 years ago being in a theatre with about 300 others when the global warming issue started.

 

We crossed to one of the key journalists of the British Guardian, a world standard commentator who updated us with what was happening TO THAT DAY, then offered to take questions. Our chairman did have a couple of mics expecting questions after the segment was finished, but the journalist explained how to hook the mics in and I jumped up and carred a mic around the room, then someone got the other mic and we were asking questions in Melbourne directly of a world authority in Manchester live.

 

The next speaker was a scientist from Chicago, and the same sequence occurred, and so on.

 

It is absolutely crazy to fight with bows and arrows when machine guns are available - particularly so in Australia, with its vast distances.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Hey, now you're talking. An interactive Q & A online would be great. Then you can look the guy in the eye as he speaks. Maybe get a handle on his integrity and motivations. I bet that would get more than the estimated 3% of us participating in the process.

 

 

[dodo]

Technology is good, but the problem we have in RA-Aus is simple, and as old as time.

 

There is no reason that RA-Aus couldn't get everything they do right without a single computer - it would just cost two or three times as much, and turnaround times for basic administrative tasks would take a couple of weeks.

 

In my day job, I am often asked to find a technological solution to what is essentially a process problem, where a better understanding of the business would obviate the need for technical answers - but people want a magic bullet solution from technology.

 

I am not against the solutions discussed here, but organisations need to get the basics right, and understand their business, first. Then you can start doing things better or cheaper with technology.

 

dodo

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Technology is good, but the problem we have in RA-Aus is simple, and as old as time.There is no reason that RA-Aus couldn't get everything they do right without a single computer - it would just cost two or three times as much, and turnaround times for basic administrative tasks would take a couple of weeks.

 

In my day job, I am often asked to find a technological solution to what is essentially a process problem, where a better understanding of the business would obviate the need for technical answers - but people want a magic bullet solution from technology.

 

I am not against the solutions discussed here, but organisations need to get the basics right, and understand their business, first. Then you can start doing things better or cheaper with technology.

 

dodo

The only problem that I want to solve is the lack of communications. While its true that technology alone cant make someone talk if they're of a mind to not talk, it can make it easier and more timely if they are prepared to open their mouth. Furthermore if its 2 way and your inbuilt "B/S detector" goes off you at least have the opportunity to poke around under that rock. At presrent using the magazine example if we look at the time from initial publication of a piece of communication then a letter to the editor as a response and maybe in the same issue a response to that letter we may be very close to 3 months since the original reason for the communication took place....Most members having lost interest and moved on......Modern technology can have it all done and dusted same day....as you know

 

Andy

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The big problem for the RAA is how to get people out of the state of indifference due to apathy due to lack of involvement. The only way I can see people getting involved to make the RAA a more activist organisation. This requires grass roots campaigns. That would mean a change from the management who have been working towards centralised decision making often with the benefit of secrecy.

 

 

[AM397]

I think that even if this will be the death knell for RA-Aus as it is now, that doesn't mean an organisation is not needed. In fact, it might be needed sooner than later if RA-Aus are suddenly bankrupt or otherwise dead.

 

So, even though some might be thinking "good riddance" in the heat of the moment, some sort of organisation is needed, whether that be revision of attitude, people, and structure of the existing one or a completely new rising from the ashes. And even that "new" organisation needs to work, and work well, to make it less prone to cronyism, secrecy and utter failures which seem ripe in the current organisation.

 

 

[dodo]

Andy,

 

I agree. I am not against the technology, but I want to keep the focus on the problem,which is a lack of willingness to communicate, rather than a lack of ability to communicate. With willingness will come better tools and methods.

 

dodo

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its bizarre, it's like there was no internet in 2008 when John wrote that column...

 

 

[old man emu]

Perhaps RAAus should take into consideration the tyranny of distance and establish a structure that has "Chapters" as the grass roots format.

 

Initially, a Chapter could be established at airfield locations where members fly, eg in NSW we could have a Chapter based on The Oaks, Warner Vale, Bathurst etc. Country members who fly off their own strips, could be part of the Chapter at the nearest public airfield. Then we could have Sections which consist of the Chapters from the same Region, eg, The Carbonne Section consisting of Bathurst, Cowra and Orange Chapters. After that, we have the State Group which would consist of all the Sections. Then the State Group comes together as the National Body.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If only there was a way I and the RAA management could send a message to OME and other interested RAA pilots cheaply and quickly. That would make organising events and keeping everyone informed a lot easier.

 

The problem with hiding behind the magazine is that its mostly a private, 1 way communication tool. Takes at least a month to get a response to the response of the message you read in the first magazine.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Perhaps RAAus should take into consideration the tyranny of distance and establish a structure that has "Chapters" as the grass roots format.Initially, a Chapter could be established at airfield locations where members fly, eg in NSW we could have a Chapter based on The Oaks, Warner Vale, Bathurst etc. Country members who fly off their own strips, could be part of the Chapter at the nearest public airfield. Then we could have Sections which consist of the Chapters from the same Region, eg, The Carbonne Section consisting of Bathurst, Cowra and Orange Chapters. After that, we have the State Group which would consist of all the Sections. Then the State Group comes together as the National Body.

 

Old Man Emu

The structure I worked with for about 8 years had the equivalent of about 55 chapters in Victoria, so multiply that by about 5 or 6 for a National total

 

There were about 30 operating locations similar to airfield in Victoria, and 105 total in Australia, with links also to the US

 

The umbrella over them was a State body

 

The umbrella over that was a Federal Body

 

Of the 55 Chapters in Victoria there were about 15 with their own National structure, so these had dual representation at the National level.

 

So you had representation as a driver, representation as a car owner/builder, and representation as a Promoter etc.

 

(The equivalent within RAA would be that foundation ultralights would have their own State Chapters and a National body in terms of specifications, operations, servicing etc, and the States locked into the umbrella State Body, and the umbrella State Body locked into the National Body)

 

This was the mid 1980's when PC's were just starting to become popular, so all contact was by meetings, phone, mail, and fax.

 

As you can see, hundreds of people were actively involved in their Associations compared to RAA in the present with just 13 representatives meeting twice a year, but most decisions being made by an executive three at times.

 

At the State level this worked very cleanly, nothing in the way of new information, problems, or opportunities escaped this network.

 

At the National Body Level, which consisted of the State umbrella organizations, and which met for two days once a year it didn't work as well because:

 

• although the Agenda consisted of issues that couldn't be resolved at State level it still was huge (you could argue we should have met monthly, but cost and volunteer time was against us and we were already meeting several times a month in other positions.)
   
   
  
• the element of territory defense applied - if you criticised Tasmania for example, that was good for an hour's argument, if you criticised the Sprint Car Racing Association, you needed smelling salts etc.
   
   
  

 

 

Oh, and the cost per member was Nil at the National level, and forty two cents at State level, and in Victoria we dealt directly with the Minister for Sport and Recreation - the Government dropped the CASA equivalent (Department of Labour and Industry as an unworkable risk pit).

 

The member base was about 5,000 to 8,000.

 

So, in a roundabout way OME, I come back to your Chapter suggestion.

 

For the Chapter idea to work you would first need to motivate the members, and only this week a couple of clowns were still arguing that they "only wanted to fly", and viewed their obligations under self administration as "politics", so you've got an issue there.

 

A bigger opportunity is electronic communication in all its forms.

 

For example you can reach all 13000 members with a broadcast email or SMS to tell them there's an issue in real time

 

You can conduct two way webinars

 

You can conduct meetings where people can vote

 

and you can do all those things without anyone having to leave their desks, so you don't have to have district and State representation, you can cut it to suit today's requirements.

 

 

[old man emu]

My reasoning behind creating localised Chapters was that these would be the places where members engaged in face-to-face networking. Just sitting around yarning about building and flying planes. You know, the grassroots of Recreational Aviation. The success or failure of an individual Chapter would have little effect on the whole Movement. Chapters tend to take care of the problem of empire builders in a volunteer organisation. Then as you move up to Sections, the meetings could deal matters which were of a more regional importance, but not necessarily of a statewide importance. And so on, up the chain.

 

The only way to ensure the longevity of the RAAus as a national body is to make it strong at the local level. Remember, you can harvest lucerne several times over a season because once it has established a strong root system, the top will quickly grow back it it has been removed.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[turboplanner]

Are you saying Rec Flying is rooted OME?

 

 

[facthunter]

Just wants us to lucerne up a bit, and we will profit from our roots.

 

Chapters work well in SAAA Some of them. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The problem with hiding behind the magazine is that its mostly a private, 1 way communication tool. Takes at least a month to get a response to the response of the message you read in the first magazine.

Try two or three months. The January magazine is probably already put to bed and the December issue is no doubt with the printers

 

 

[turboplanner]

There's nothing to stop you sitting around yarning about building and flying planes now OME, but if you're thinking of a Chapter as a power base which puts resolutions to a State base which debates those resolutions and if the voting is right puts those resolutions to the National body - in other words vertical integration, that's pretty much like the Liberal Party machine, and it can take locals a number of years of campaigning to get something up. Sounds good, but you (locals) don't have the horsepower in the state debate, whereas now you can call up your board member, and he puts it on the table at the national level......twice a year admittedly, but that could be improved on.

 

You are actually yarning about building and flying planes on this site by the way, and to a much wider audience,

 

 

[winsor68]

My reasoning behind creating localised Chapters was that these would be the places where members engaged in face-to-face networking. Just sitting around yarning about building and flying planes. You know, the grassroots of Recreational Aviation. The success or failure of an individual Chapter would have little effect on the whole Movement. Chapters tend to take care of the problem of empire builders in a volunteer organisation. Then as you move up to Sections, the meetings could deal matters which were of a more regional importance, but not necessarily of a statewide importance. And so on, up the chain.The only way to ensure the longevity of the RAAus as a national body is to make it strong at the local level. Remember, you can harvest lucerne several times over a season because once it has established a strong root system, the top will quickly grow back it it has been removed.

 

Old Man Emu

IMO this structure is what is needed (it is what Ra-Aus was supposed to put in place from what I can gather) not so much for the governance of the organization but for the Operational side of things...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........ profit from our roots.......

Ummm is that legal...As you know from the CASA Deed we must be legal!!

 

I thought the R in RAAus was recreational.....maybe its Redlight

 

 

[facthunter]

Wasn't my original meaning but our headquarters are in Fyshwick. Canberra's porn district. Nev

 

 

[Robmus]

I wonder if it is worth looking at how the GFA (Gliding Federation Australia) has survived and is still strong since 1949?