Board members expressing opinion - thread split

[gandalph]

Nah. Not a member of any old boys club. Maybe a member of the grumpy old man's club though not so much old, as ancient - which is where the tag Gandalph came from.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you are old(er) you are entitled to be sceptical, and if observant and not impressed with the way things are done you might even be grumpy with justification. That's fair enough. If you wear a big grin all the time you will be mistaken for the Villiage idiot. maybe. Nev

 

 

[Captain]

Having (successfully) represented the interests of motorcyclists ( a group then generally considered to be somewhat below-par in the intelligence stakes) to the Federal Minister of Transport ............

Occy,

 

 

 

I would like to continue this little chat on this issue, so will move it over to the Aviation & Motorcycles thread. See ya there, eh?

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Oscar]

Will do - on the way.

 

 

[Captain]

You've decried the existence of 'self-appointed representatives' - yet the one Board member who is adopting that exact position on the basis of the support of 67 of more than 9,5000 members of RAA appears to have escaped your wrath. 12 of 13 Board members are quietly getting on with the business of pulling RAA out of the excrement it threw itself into while one has run his flag up the Maypole for his personal agenda.

From that other thread ........................

 

 

 

There you go jumping back into character again.

 

 

 

Surely even you can see the difference between someone who appoints themselves to represent us, and someone who submits themselves to due process and is elected fully in accordance with the constitution of RA-Aus.

 

 

 

He was ELECTED. It is not up to you to appoint yourself the arbiter of the non-existent sub-category of how many votes you think it takes to make that kosher.

 

 

 

He was elected, he is elected and he has every right & responsibility that is conferred on someone who is elected.

 

 

 

I know a number of Board Members who express an opinion and Madge is no different. It is ridiculous for you to claim otherwise and it looks like it is you who have the personal agenda of attacking him just because he speaks his mind here and elsewhere on an issue or 2. As just 1 of a number on the Board, I am satisfied with the processes involved and I am willing to defend his right to hold an opinion or three.

 

 

 

But for you to claim that somehow he is less elected because of the number that voted in the f'n Q election is perverse.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[facthunter]

The process has been satisfied. If hardly any bother to vote it is them who could have been remiss if the wrong person is in (Hypothetically). I know this is still a two person show so I am brief. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Ah, well, Captain, you choose to champion the position of someone who has the demonstrated legitimacy to express the position of somewhere less than 1% of the RAA eligible voting population. Absolutely your right to so do..

 

I'll go with the remaining 99+% who did not vote for him and hope to f**k that those we have to deal with outside the confines of this forum recognise that he is not representative of us.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't give a reward for apathy Oscar. Apathy is a universal problem not a voting bloc. No-one can claim the vote of the non voters UNLESS a particular group make it their policy on a specific issue. It's still not truly arguable, even then. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Don't give a reward for apathy Oscar. Apathy is a universal problem not a voting bloc. No-one can claim the vote of the non voters UNLESS a particular group make it their policy on a specific issue. It's still not truly arguable, even then. Nev

Point well taken. But by the same token, you can't claim a moral right to represent the majority without the endorsement of the majority. So what we are left with, after the non-voting population of RAA is discounted, is the behaviour of the elected representatives. 12 of 13 are getting on with business without making a public meal of the proceedings. I'm inclined to go with the flow here.

 

 

[coljones]

Point well taken. But by the same token, you can't claim a moral right to represent the majority without the endorsement of the majority. So what we are left with, after the non-voting population of RAA is discounted, is the behaviour of the elected representatives. 12 of 13 are getting on with business without making a public meal of the proceedings. I'm inclined to go with the flow here.

Ah Oscar - what rubbish you write. Using your logic, those who got appointed without a vote - not opposed- represent no-one and should absent themselves from all deliberations. Most of the candidates offered up no policies except their record and on that basis are entitled to and are expected to bring the aspirations of everyone to the deliberations. Whether they are doing it is debatable but to be heard you must ask but you can't criticise the members of the board for doing their job.

If you don't like a board member or what they are doing do what one does in a democracy 1.) run as a candidate or 2.) support a candidate you can trust and vote for them &/or 3.) put up progressive policies the board might consider. It is called democracy.

 

I am not sure I am on the major's side but he was elected by a majority of those who could be bothered. Those who didn't vote or didn't nominate don't have any right to call foul.

 

There are still some clowns on the board and I will be using my democratic right to rid the board of them - at the next election.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

spot on Col......Blaming a candidate for a geographic areas failure to nominate and/or vote is absurd. Go back a few years and it was likely that 1/2 the representatives were elected unopposed. In fact I would suggest that the vote numbers for FnQ for the election that Major won probably eclipsed previous turn out numbers. In fact the reason for the FnQ election was the midterm resignation of the previous president who was elected unopposed. That too was the fault of the members not the ex presidents fault.

 

Blaming Major for members apathy it is completely illogical IMHO

 

If we look at the boards "achievements" over recent years then it seems a s a bunch we are stirred to action only when things appear to be grim, look at NSW last time we had multiple candidates and a large (for RAAus) voter turn out. I fear that if things get better we'll go back to "elected unopposed" right up until we go of the rails again....assuming that CASA allows that to occur and doesn't just transition us all to the RPL

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah, well, Captain, you choose to champion the position of someone who has the demonstrated legitimacy to express the position of somewhere less than 1% of the RAA eligible voting population. Absolutely your right to so do..I'll go with the remaining 99+% who did not vote for him and hope to f**k that those we have to deal with outside the confines of this forum recognise that he is not representative of us.

That makes sense Oscar. That 99% didn't go anywhere, didn't bother to vote, and will play no part in fixing any of the major issues, so we'll all have to rely on Major.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

A previous boss I used to work for had a saying "Hope is not a viable strategy, we are paid to be managers not people in the audience who watch and yell after the fact."

 

The intent is obvious, we have an obligation to be involved and shape future direction. Choosing to not nominate where you have skills and experience and time available, or choosing to not vote to me is a clear case of people abandoning their obligations with a fallback position of "hope it all works out".

 

Rarely in life do things we want to happen actually happen with no involvement from us. If we want change then we need to be involved in making the change occur.

 

Major chose to do something.....and more power to him. Is he the right guy for the job? The FnQ members that chose to be involved believe so and that's all that matters. If participation is so low as to almost be statistically irrelevant as you suggested, what are you doing Oscar to change that?

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

But by the same token, you can't claim a moral right to represent the majority without the endorsement of the majority.

Occy,

 

 

 

When an election has been held? What rot. Your argument is unsound. You lose.

 

 

 

And all this from someone who fancies himself as being much smarter than the average dill motorcyclist and therefore who has pretentions of being one of the self evaluated and self-appointed intelligencia. Your arguments on this issue alone disqualify ya.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Oscar]

Andy, I voted in my region, as I would imagine you did also. Beyond that and communicating with my regional member and another Board member I know personally my feelings etc. on issues to which I would like to see attention/decision being given (and I'm sure that all of us who could be bothered to vote probably do exactly the same), I think we're all in the same boat of there being not much more we can do.

 

However, my position on all of this has been very considerably mis-represented. I am in no way questioning the Maj's 'legitimacy' of election as the FNQ rep, nor have I ever questioned his right to hold and express whatever personal opinion he likes as either a personal or Board member of RAA. My sole issue has been and remains that he made a statement purporting to indicate an official RAA position that is not in fact the case and that could have quite a prejudicial impact on the ownership and operation of all Jabirus - yours, mine, everybody else's. If he wants to say that in his personal opinion, every pilot should be forced to wear a pink tutu while flying - he has every right to do so. If a non-Board member says that 'I understand the RAA is taking action to round-up and publicly burn every Jabiru in Australia' - they also have a right to say such a thing and others have an equal right to question, support, deny, ridicule, whatever the idea. However, it is an entirely different thing if a Board member says 'the RAA is doing xxx"

 

I continue to maintain that a Board member has an obligation to correctly represent the actual policies of the Board when making any statement that they imply is a statement of RAA position or policy. When such a statement directly implies that there is an issue of safety of a particular type of aircraft - especially one that that is widely owned and used for both personal and training - it is not a trivial matter.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Fair enough, and I agree that in an ideal world a board member needs to clarify personal vs board positions for minor issues, however I would like to think that a quick follow up question if that position is not made clear would resolve and allow us to focus on the content rather than the who. If the issue is major (and I don't mean Ross here) I would like to think that the board and employees of RAAus have a communications plan for appropriate dissemination of the info. If its a major issue someone giving a BTW in a forum post is hardly the right method for communicating the issue in a controlled and known way to the entire membership....of which the great majority wont give a stuff unless it personally impacts their ability to continue doing what they were doing in the weeks prior.

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

Andy, I did follow it up; two Board members hadn't heard of any such suggestion and the Tech Manager discussed with me the fact that RAA does not have the 'authority' to do what was implied (somehow force Jabiru to re-engineer their engines by weight of some action or other within the scope of RAA authority). We all wish Jabiru WOULD make improvements, let's not go over that again. I indicated in a post here that for those who wished to check the facts, the Tech Manager was able to supply them so anybody who wished to check could access a proper source of information, not simply rely on any opinion I might be stating.

 

The Tech Manager and I imagine the Board have far more on their immediate plate than hosing down brushfires and quite a bit of that work is pretty much likely to be at close to survival-level for the RAA in future, given the position that the RAA was in when the dust settled on the elections last year. I would infinitely prefer that they have the chance to get on with that work. As you say, as long as they are not affected, the great majority won't give a stuff but if RAA can't do what it needs to do, we'll all go down together and it's not going to be of any practical use to any of us to be able to say: 'I told you so'.

 

 

[jetboy]

Oscar, is there a place I can see the technical details of what this latest "problem" with Jabirus is?

 

As reading these forums from an outside perspective - in NZ I'm not a RAA member - just part of the Great Unwashed whom simarly dont get much response from our own 3 microlighting organisations, a notable exception is the RAANZ work done on the flywheel bolts issue of way back, so rely on whats being said or not said over here.........I worry a bit for my own engine and like to keep up with any accusations - good or bad - in order to evaluate the best course of action.

 

PM me if thats more appropriate

 

Thanks

 

 

[Oscar]

JB - not a 'latest problem' at all, just the general concern with Jab. engines not getting to their life expectancy figures and too many having early-time failures. We all know that operational experience varies way more than what would be considered a 'normal' scatter of failures, though it's also true that some people take that scatter and sheet the blame home to manufacturing, others lean towards operation being a critically important factor.

 

The whole cause of this thread was that one Board member chose to state that RAA was 'doing something' (unspecified) about it - a clear statement of intent on RAA's part. Further up in the thread I've outlined the results of my contacts with other RAA Board members and the RAA Tech. Manager and the simple conclusion is that the responsibility for 'doing' anything does not rest with RAA. So, nothing 'new' re Jab. engines, just some familiar drum-beating by a particular individual being apparently given extra status by dint of his position on the Board. Heat, but no new light...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

JB. The jabiru website has all the various AD's and checks required for all their engines. I suggest if you have concerns then dont rely on this forum for accurate information regarding"the latest issues" with Jabs or any other engine. This forum is only a resource, not an authority at all.

 

If you have an issue with a Jab (or any other) engine be sure to report the problem or defect through the right channels, to add usable data to the weight of " general knowledge" so that those that can do something, will have the facts behind them.

 

Oscar is not an authority on Jabiru aircraft. Jabiru are the authority on jabirus.

 

Cheers