NSW Election results are up on the RAAus Website

[facthunter]

Aero clubs vary. Sometimes they are a hive of cliques , with IN and not in people. (Like a lot of clubs are) Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

My experience is clubs are mostly trouble there is usually someone whose ego tells them that they are better than everybody else and so they should dictate what people should do.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sounds a bit like marriage, which only has a chance of working when (like crossing a minefield) you do it very carefully. You wouldn't want to cross a minefield when you are in the state you tend to be when you contemplate marriage.. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Hey, everybody - Clubs are not the issue here. Clubs do not issue your registration or Pilot's Certificate. You do not have to belong to a Club to keep flying your RAA-class aircraft.

 

RAA does.

 

Whatever the dynamics may be in any Club to which you belong - your membership is voluntary. However, to keep flying your RAA-class aircraft legally, you HAVE to be a member of RAA - it is a monopoly. RAA is NOT a Club - it is a Business - the business of keeping you legally in the air. And, it has significantly failed to deliver a decent level of service over the last few years. It does not provide airfields, club houses, hangars, newsletters, or represent your interests to local authorities.

 

Any discussion of the dynamics of Clubs has no relevance to RAA's performance. Can we please get back on track here?

 

 

[facthunter]

Oscar, you brought up the aeroclubs and qualified what they did . I do not concur with the" fine community structure" as being typical, but more to the point.... The RAAus is not an aeroclub, but it has to represent OUR interests, as nothing else does and it is inferred in our structure with elected reps on the board of management but it has been assigned the role of "Authority" as well. Some years ago I brought this matter to the attention of this forum highlighting the difficulty of serving two masters. Somewhat prophetic, if I may say so in retrospect. I would suggest it is difficult to achieve if not impossible. Certainly needs more skill and attention than first applied. The problem really remains unresolved. The relationship between us and the CASA must be clarified. IF we do things for them we must be indemnified .Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Surely there's a chicken-and-egg syndrome here? From what I understand ( and I am happy to be corrected), it was basically a situation that CASA was prepared to hand over the administration of Ultralight aircraft operation to a suitable body - and the RAA was created out of the ashes, as it were, of the 'peak Club' authority that was the AUF. Did the Clubs decide that a new 'peak' authority was necessary and CASA seized on the existence of RAA, or was it that RAA was created to fit the authority CASA was prepared to accept?

 

In the former case, it is arguable that the combined force of an association of Clubs presented the opportunity for RAA to take on the compliance administration role. However, if CASA was the horse here - requiring a single 'authority' to undertake the administration role - then I suggest that the existence of RAA has naught to do with Clubs associating to create a peak body. I see nothing in the Constitution that suggests a hierarchical structure founded on Clubs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oscar, you brought up the aeroclubs and qualified what they did . I do not concur with the" fine community structure" as being typical, but more to the point.... The RAAus is not an aeroclub, but it has to represent OUR interests, as nothing else does and it is inferred in our structure with elected reps on the board of management but it has been assigned the role of "Authority" as well. Some years ago I brought this matter to the attention of this forum highlighting the difficulty of serving two masters. Somewhat prophetic, if I may say so in retrospect. I would suggest it is difficult to achieve if not impossible. Certainly needs more skill and attention than first applied. The problem really remains unresolved. The relationship between us and the CASA must be clarified. IF we do things for them we must be indemnified .Nev

FH there are literally thousands of Associations which have been established since the 1980's for Self Administration, thereby offloading legal liability from State and Federal Governments; that was the sneaky intent of the politicians who saw they would be easy, and wealthy, targets after a double fatality at a Government kindergarten in South Australia.

 

Where it gets more complicated is where Department of Infrastructure and Transport has been silly enough to put its fingers back in the pie, in road transport in conjunction with the State road authorities, and aviation, through CASA.

 

In the case of CASA it has created interference in the self regulation of the various bodies, and re-inherited public liability as we saw in a recent case where CASA was a co-defendant.

 

If RAA is operating correctly, it will not be serving two masters within the Incorporated Association format; the problem is so many people just do not understand how powerful an Incorporated Association can be. The relationship between CASA and RAA is also clear; you are thinking of the prescriptive era of the past where I agree things would have been confusing, but CASA would not have needed an RAA then.

 

Oscar, a few people on this forum have repeatedly suggested RAA was operating as a club or like a club; that's not true and is just to bolster their ownambitions to try to change it into another type of body, without having the experience to understand the ramifications.

 

Nor is RAA a "Peak Body" beloved by some government Ministers in the past as a way to "get to" groups and industries. Self regulation has eliminated that need.

 

Not is RAA a collection of clubs; you only have to look at the Constitution as you say.

 

Nor is club "accreditation" necessary these days, so for example there's no need for a club to "belong" to RAA, or mirror the RAA constitution.

 

There certainly is a place for flying clubs, for example, a group of people banding together to buy land, build an airstrip, build and rent hangars, do its own fundraising, conduct its own events etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree with the "Clubs" bit. They are not a part of the equation, and whether they exist in whole or in part or not at all is no part of the RAAus's concern. FTF's are the concern of the RAAus who might have an arrangement with a club or an airfield owner or a repair shop or a rotary club etc.

 

As far as the "passing on" of some the functions of an authority Turbs including oversight of standards, this was always in the domain of the CASA ( under legislation). We do receive monies from them in recognition of this. Whether the amount is enough or not enough would require clarification in detail of our function(s). Perhaps the structure for this is there. I don't know if it is clear and understood and agreed. Other than money I believe we should receive oversight ( Audit) They would have to do that, or they are negligent, but that makes my point. Since from time to time we could reasonably expect to be challenged in the courts. ( as we have been). I can't see we could ever have the resources to fund that. That is why some indemnity to put some cap ( limit) on our liability is needed. Nev