The RA-AUS Board and RA-Aus direction.

[Geoff]

Hay turtle maby they use one of the 3Ts

 

 

[Yenn]

Before the web became so well used we got notams and other info on the phone and we still can. How do you get info when away from home and a computer?

 

I am strongly in agreement with the comments about coloured text on coloured backgrounds. I think is is just a fad of the editor or whatever you call him. Rather like the programmer who makes complex programs to do a simple job. As for online magazine I wouldn't want it. I like a hard copy, but having said that I am in a bushwalking club that only has to put out 2 printed newsletters for those without a computer. The great plus is using emails to provide info at short notice. RAAus could for example give advice of any aircraft failures as they occur rather than waiting for the mag.

 

 

[Lamiunto]

The best option in my opinion would be to have an electronic and print version available. A lot of magazines offer you the choice, you can have an electronic copy, or a printed one, or even both. Generally, if you request an electronic one, that is all you get, if you request a printed one, you receive the electronic one as well.

 

As for actually making the PDF, the "editor" simply saves it as a PDF, or exports it, depending on what they use, and as far as I know, Adobe InDesign CS is the industry standard.

 

 

[Admin]

If anyone wants to be able to create a pdf file all you need is CutePDF Writer http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp and it is free. You install it and it is a printer so to create the pdf you just print the file by selecting CutePDF and it creates the pdf file for you.

 

 

[vk3auu]

RAAus & SAAA

 

Andy,

 

There are many people who are members of both organisations. Some would like to be but because of financial constraints only belong to one. Having one organisation to service the combined membership of both would have a great financial benefit, particularly in management and magazine costs. It would also enable the larger organisation to provide more and better services to the members. It would give us a better opportunity to lobby governments. I believe that the RAAus would benefit from the additional technical expertise which is available from many SAAA members and the SAAA would benefit from the greater managerial clout of the RAAus. These combined attributes will become more apparent if and when we get the 750 kg (or whatever) weight limit as a large number SAAA aircraft will fall into that category.

 

I would like to hear arguments to the contrary, based on logic and not emotion. The time has come to bury any past animosities which a few years ago, stood in the way of such a move.

 

David

 

 

[Allan 601XL]

I am with you David

 

I think a lot of good would come with a united body of all people that fly for recreation.

 

 

[Lamiunto]

One problem with a single body that manages all of recreational flying is whether that body will have the financial and human resources to manage all of it. Plus have the legal clout when it comes to regulations and then have enough diversity in the management area to make sure every type of recreational flying is catered for. In the end, it would just become another CASA, only they would have control over a smaller group of pilots and much smaller aircraft.

 

By all means, merge, become larger, stand up to CASA, but will the organisation have the cash and management power to oversee the management of a diverse community such as ours? With the RAA and SAAA stretched out pretty thin at the moment already, think about tripling the size the community with only a fractional increase in size at management, it is a recipe for disaster.

 

 

[Allan 601XL]

Shaun

 

What you say is true but if the recreational fliers (pilot's that fly anything for fun)don't act together in some way we might find that we could become burdened by new rules, you only have to look at the ASIC card to see what could happen.

 

Mo-gas will be the next thing with state governments making the use of ethanol law. As a united group you might be able make a stand.

 

May be all the groups form a lobby group to act against the Governments??

 

Or the groups stay separate but form a body like the EAA (USA) which asks as the single voice??

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

this argument has been going on for close to 30 years.

 

The AUF was born in a tent at the SAAA fly in at Mangalore in '83.

 

Unfortunatly some saw the SAAA as a threat of some type.

 

I saw it as an opertunity to have everyone working together and move along the same path similar to how the EAA operate.

 

i don't belive that money would be a problem. If anything running costs would come down. The SAAA had bent over backwards to get the "birth" of our movement happening. I am sure that things would have progressed much faster and smoothly with the dept, if they were approached by one organised group rather than several different and sometimes batteling fractions. Much energy has been wasted over the years.

 

Personally i am tired of this. The gung ho attitude of our CEO with remarks in the mag like 'tomorrow the world" has only added to the fragmenting with another group formed. In one way we have done well but i do belive that the whole of "sport/recreational flying' would have been much better off operating under one roof so to speak.

 

Lost count of how many airshows/fly ins of have been to and participated in but i can say that the best two were both Mangalore SAAA fly ins. everyone on the same airfield with their own area and airspace. homebuilts, gliders, gyros, ultralights, and minimums all on the one field.

 

Everyone treated as equals and no animosity.

 

I am not neccesaraly pro SAAA but i am for one united group/voice.

 

but i will go for whoever will look after my interests without attitude or ego.

 

OZZIE

 

 

[facthunter]

RAAus & SAAA.

 

All good discussion. I can't see why you would need more management, with more numbers. (after all a big ship has as many captains as a small one) Perhaps you would need more staff, but this is where you would achieve economies of scale.

 

As for becoming another CASA, I will assume that we believe that CASA does some things that WE don't like. The current RAAus, could do things that we don't like either, in some circumstances. We try to prevent this happening with communication & involvement within a set of rules that we have a say in forming, so to a certain extent we are our own masters and we get the leaders we deserve, and hopefully, most of the results that we (collectively) want.

 

I can't see the inclusion of the sort of people that are in the SAAA, who are enthusiastic, genuine aviators & constructors, with some considerable skills as being anything but an asset. Certainly the persistence of any animosity (structural), does no good for either organisation, and is unworthy of people who seek the advancement of sport/ recreational aviation. Nev...

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I got right through a post and my computer crashed! Try again.

 

I'm a confirmed functionalist in a structuralist world. We waste far too much money on structural responses to functional issues. And by the time we have made and bedded down our structural response the functional issues have changed.

 

So instead of spending money on a huge amalgamation and transition - you know member votes, politicking, mail outs, flying around meeting people, moving offices, agreeing on a new Board and reconfirming or changing key staff, changing the logo, letterhead.....bedding down the inevitable foulups, fights, unintended consequences, misunderstandings....We need to respond in a flexible and sensible way to the challenges ahead.

 

By doing that in a functional way compared to a structural way the outcome:

 

• costs less;
   
   
  
• happens faster;
   
   
  
• is more flexible;
   
   
  
• is able to rapidly change as demand changes; and
   
   
  
• is able to move to a structural change if that appears appropriate over time.
   
  

 

Long gone are the days of marrying before a test drive! The same should apply to organisations.

 

As for the argument of reduced costs these are a furphy in any meaningful timeframe. Arguments about whose offices should close resolve through having a "branch office" for some transition period, staff numbers are not actively culled because of the complex politics. Taking that, together with the actual costs of transition, you find that the payback period is often 5 years plus. And as Billy Connolly says "%&$# stay awake 'cause it'll all change again tomorrow".

 

There are good reasons to work together so why not just do that? Meet with likeminded people a few times a year, agree a joint plan of work, get on and do it and then decide where/how to go next. It's flexible, low cost and adaptable. Often by working together we see that the other bloke/sheila is not that bad after all - animosity subsides and new opportunities arise.

 

My two bob's worth.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest JRMobile]

Mike

 

Well said, nice two bob's worth.;)

 

 

[BigPete]

Fair enough David - I'm with you.

 

"United we stand - divided we fall"

 

after all - we all fly in the same air under the same (physical) rules.

 

regards

 

 

[Yenn]

Since the rules changed and it is possible to build and register GA without having to be a member of SAA I have been wondering what SAA's reason for being is. I know that there is a great deal of building expertise there but what else do they have to offer?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

agreed, well composed.

 

The way to go. As for who moves where and what staff makes the move is simple. Buy or obtain a country airport. operate the whole show from there. aka Whitman Field. Not only would you have your operational structure there but dedicated facilities for training of instructers and CIs and maintainence operators. ect dedicated facilities for comps and judging. This was a bold plan about 20 yrs ago when an attempt to obtain mangalore as the "national aviation sporting centre" then again several yrs later at wangaratta. if these past attempts had come off, recreational and sporting aviation as a whole would be much more advanced state and quite possibly be inherently safer thru the flow on of efficiency. Each fraction has their own board and ceo. king of the heap is the collective ceo's who are the ones who go into battle with whoever wishes to challenge us. they walk in as an organised representaion of sporting bodies. acting on behalf of one or all disiplines.

 

"yardy yarda"

 

If anything Easter would be a blast.

 

but then history has and will continue unfortunatly to repeat itself.

 

OZ

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

As a general reminder about multi function organisations have a think about the following:

 

We have had a multi-discipline harmonization and political lobby group for bloody years – ASAC! The Board of ASAC has seats for all recreational interest groups and did provide the united voice being touted on this thread. But RAAus pulled out of it!!!!

 

Putting all the rec aviation groups under one roof as a single management (read member subscription) entity is an almost impossible task in tangible terms for a variety of very good reasons. The top one of those is the sheer expense and complexity of doing it – it would be administration and politics gone mad!

 

We are all flying organisations and need to put our resources into Operations and Airworthiness control – not squander money and effort on yet more administration and politics.

 

The big power and benefit of the individual honorary bodies that control their aviation interest is that they are (or should be) hands-on specialists in their field and can give direct practical support to their memberships very quickly and thoroughly.

 

Put them all under one roof in control terms and we dilute. Let the budget conscious pollies get their claws on that and we will be trotting around with too few specialist staff trying to cover too much area.

 

Just look at how RAAus has deliberately manoeuvred to get just itself in this position with one Tech Manager having to deal with about 2000 aircraft, Gawd knows how many types, plus deal with the “new arrivals†and weirdo schemes! Yet RAAus want to open the gate even further at 750 kg!

 

I am not being “traditionalist†sportsfans – I just fail to see the management sense in this sort of thing at our present level and an even more diverse group makes the mind boggle.

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

To get back to the original point of this thread (direction of RAAus, how to make it better etc) here are some lateral thinking ideas that in fact are not very original and have been in successful use for decades – so you can be sure that they are proven to work!

 

They all revolve around two basic concepts:

 

• We are primarily a flying organisation and therefore our main use of resources should be focussed on Operations and Airworthiness – with Administration & Politics relegated to merely the minimum level needed to keep our main activities functioning.
   
   
  
• We are also an honorary control organisation and this should be more aligned to “by the members, for the membersâ€Â. We therefore need a concerted push to utilise our most valuable resource – several thousand members with their skills and experience – and reduce the created bottleneck in Canberra of a handful of staff.
   
  

 

Via bullet point rather than a discourse:

 

• The structural emphasis of the movement must change to one where the membership are actively part of the functioning of the organisation rather than the presently constructed “de-facto CASA†arrangement of a small control edifice (Board & Managers) that are over-worked, servicing a customer/user base (the Membership) that are therefore poorly utilised! We have to get rid of (or at least minimise) this “us/them†mentality that is the seat of unrest and schisms!
   
  

 

 

 

• Why have the expense of a CEO at all? All we need is a restructured Board, an active Executive and a switched-on administration person who is authorized to sign official documents (via Executive direction) and run a small office! Hard management would be via the paid Ops and Tech managers steering their respective areas under Board Policy.
   
  

 

 

 

• We should return to the original intended structure of AUF at its inception in the mid 1980s – that is Regional control with a central Canberra office that was primarily there to give a unified voice of the Regions as AUF came into existence and ANO95.25 was won for us all. That Regional concept died almost still-born and was supplanted with totally centralised control. The Regional vestiges today are the Pilot Examiner (Ops), the L3 Maintenance Authority holders (Airworthiness) and the Regional Representatives (Board) but in practice none of them have any real clout.
   
  

 

 

 

• Regional reactivation is the key to member involvement and solving the “Canberra Bottleneckâ€Â. This can be done easily enough provided we think Ops/Airworthiness control rather than admin/political control! We need to use our senior experienced members to form Regional Panels that are active entities supporting local members because those Panels are active in the field locally. We also begin establishing a tier of responsibility that we can extend downwards to the individual member pilot/owner via that local support. This is a vital component in influencing member attitudes and therefore evolving a true safety culture.
   
  

 

 

 

• Via the Regional Panels we can access many benefits. Principle amongst these are member education, formation of Regional training (especially important in Airworthiness where we have NOTHING!), plus member local knowledge support and surveillance that may be peculiar to the Region.
   
  

 

 

 

• As consequence to the above we may begin addressing the manifold shortfalls in our current control ordinance and delegate teams or individuals, working in parallel, to formulate draft syllabi and training guides.
   
  

 

 

 

• The Regional Panels (Ops & Airworthiness) would each be headed up by an appointed (not voted for) Regional Technical Officer (RTO Ops and RTO Air). Across the nation one of these would be appointed as Chief Technical Officer (CTO Ops and CTO Air) and would be automatic Board members. They would draw on the problems and suggestions of the Regions and provide the main Board with direct and valid steerage of the current needs of the membership at large.
   
  

 

 

 

• A better informed Board will make wiser Policy decisions that are orientated to current member needs, pressure areas developing for which strategies may be produced etc. This then brings the respective Ops and Tech manager’s roles into more valid reality. The two CTOs bear the responsibility of day to day standards that the Board has formulated into policy via skilled technical advice, and the paid managers have the responsibility of simply putting that Policy into practical usage for the members. This will relieve considerable inequitable pressure that the two managers presently potentially face.
   
  

 

 

 

• Now, to make this all happen we would have to re-organise the Board itself. This again may seem radical but is common practice in other places. RAAus is now too large to have non qualified people on the Board! To make the Board function there must be delegated responsibility areas and tasking and these will only effectively be done by experienced people with skills. There are a number of such people available but are experienced enough to hold back from standing for the Board rather than waste their valuable time in the present scenario – much as they may wish to contribute, they would wish to do so under the terms of accepted business and normal aviation professional practice – not polarised control perceived as alien and distorting an honorary structure!
   
  

 

 

 

• As a Board structure we should return to what we once had – specific Executive elections plus the change of the two CTOs automatically elected to the Board and eight Regional representatives = 13 in all so each Region does have a “base member†representation.
   
  

 

(Note: At present we just have a group elected by popular opinion, or who is prepared to put their hand up, and then the Board decides from amongst what they have who should be the Executive etc).

 

• The Secretary is the key point of any Board and should be elected on demonstrated administrative competence capable of dealing with high level communication at the required standard for a National body.
   
  

 

 

 

• The Treasurer requires demonstrated formal accounting skills inclusive of the ability to handle internal audits and perform forward financial planning.
   
  

 

 

 

• The President should demonstrate an adequate experience base in the Movement inclusive of a sound grasp of Operational and Airworthiness control and a demonstrated ability to represent the Movement in the political arena.
   
  

 

 

 

• The Regional reps could be elected as normal but each may be delegated with specific control tasks that they are responsible for, eg Public relations, communications and website, airspace etc.
   
  

 

 

 

• The two CTO’s come on automatically as they are appointed rather than voted in.
   
  

 

The combination of the above should then address itself to formal management planning, driven by management by objectives (MBOs) that in turn are under time scales. In this manner we will have dynamic and effective management that is totally transparent and to which the membership may easily empahise with.

 

The above may not be ideal but will move us into a more practical and effective control structure than we presently have.

 

In conclusion – the sad part of all this is that it was done years ago and does work well – but in other organisations. An AUF Board were given a full paper on it and it went nowhere, control had to be centralised in Canberra.

 

But it does make a lot of sense does it not?

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Yenn]

Tony.

 

Tell the RAAus board, have your say. The president has asked for input and I am putting together my 20c worth. We have to be aware of the fact that RAAus do not have the final say on legislation, they are controlled and paid to be administrators by CASA.