Relocating the office...where to?

[Oscar]

Don, some excellent thoughts. As I believe I indicated above, I can't really think of any reason for RAA to stay in Canberra, other than perhaps lobbying, which I don't believe it has ever done well (or maybe - at all?). Nor do I hold a brief for any other particular site, other than that I believe that any HQ location needs to be sited where it will be most effective at performing its key tasks.

 

That rationale has, of course, a number of factors, some of which have been well canvassed in this thread. For the sake of clarity, I'll list what I think are the significant factors that should be considered (and not probably in the right order of importance, but I'll have a go):

 

1) Accessibility by the membership. Rationally, this does not necessarily mean 'physical accessibility' as in - the most convenient place for members to be able to walk through the door. How many members visit - or feel they would need to visit - RAA HQ in, say, a year? I suspect it is a very low percentage, and with advances in IT-based teleccomunications, this is becoming less and less. So, accessibility in general terms may well be better achieved by ensuring that RAA HQ has very good telecommunications capability, with good local IT back-up etc.

 

2) Attractive to recruit and retain high-quality staff. If RAA retains a 'centralised' staff model, then the HQ needs to be located somewhere where the sort of staff RAA needs, will be happy to live and work. A complex one, because of course people's tastes vary, and you can't please all of the people all of the time.. Cost of relocation, climate, steady real-estate values, proximity to 'interesting' venues etc. would all play a part. Obviously, if RAA can operate on a more decentralised staff model (and I personally believe it can), then many of those issues diminish as problems..

 

3) Cost and value. Intertwined, of course, but both need to be considered. For instance, establishing a completely new facility even fairly cheaply say at an airfield somewhere might well result in expenditure that could not later be effectively recovered. Conversely, a flash suite of offices in a sought-after location might not in reality improve RAA's performance of its key tasks any better than something far more modest. Assets are only assets if they are negotiable! (There are plenty of 'technology parks' that have been established with high expectations, that languish for occupancy).

 

4) Symbolic quotient. Does RAA need - and would it get value from - having a high-visibility symbolic HQ? Is there a ROI factor that should be considered? By way of explanation: North Sydney has ( or certainly used to have) a high symbolic value as a location for IT companies; if you had flashy offices in North Sydney, you were considered a 'heavy hitter' in the IT game in the 90's and noughties. Effectively, you were purchasing cachet by installing yourself there. Whether it's North Sydney or Narromine - would it make any difference to RAA's perceived importance to say CASA / the Minister for Transport, make Recreational Aviation more attractive to new members etc. Hell, the current RAA HQ is literally a stroll from the Fairfax media major newspaper the Canberra Times offices - but I don't see RAA being consulted or quoted very often, unless there is an accident involving an RAA aircraft.

 

5) Opportunity cost. As with any enterprise, any cost for one element means a reduction in the opportunity to invest that cost in another element. RAA exists ( or at least SHOULD exist - though one at times wonders whether this has been the guiding principle in its management at all times since its inception) - to serve the interests of its members. What is the mix of expenditure that maximises RAA's services to its members, and where in that mix does the cost/value equation of any form of HQ reside? The answer to that might well require Solomon-like wisdom, but it's not a question that can be answered without at least some consideration.

 

 

 

[robinsm]

Just a thought, what about eh staff we have employed. Nick has hit the nail on the head. Who will move, who wont, what expertise will we loose, etc etc. Does it really need an airstrip attached? If so, why?.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Not being a member of RAA, but a member of GFA, I have no opinion to express; but a couple of points occur to me:

 

1. GFA is mainly on-line based. It has an office - in Melbourne - but I don't know whether that's a hang-over from the past (It used to occupy a small condemned building on Essendon airport - and quite definitely people did NOT fly in there to call on HQ). It's in the process of getting its flight safety and airworthiness defect reporting software - which has been extant for a while - into general use so these reports are automatically distributed to everybody who needs to know about them, without the need of the technical managers to do essentially clerical tasks. The technical people are all over Australia, they do NOT drive to work for GFA. Oscar is quite correct; it's the 21st century, and you do NOT need bricks or a mountain of paper; you need broadband and a good computer system with daily backup.

 

So I do not see any necessity for a central office close to an RPT airport; and even less so, an airport in controlled airspace. I doubt I'd ever need to physically visit the GFA head office.

 

2. It seems to me that people have an expectation that RAA could do something like the EAA has done, at Oskosh - and the Natfly concept is very obviously based on the EAA annual event at Oskosh, writ smaller. But that's once a year; the RAA business is daily.

 

3. GFA is broken-down into regional responsibilities; there is a Regional Technical Officer (Ops) and a Regional Technical Officer (Airworthiness) for each region - which are, in the main, the States. The RTOs keep their fingers on what is going on in their regions, and do quite a bit of the donkey work; and have an annual face-to-face to sort out policy issues. It works; the central office (so called) Technical Managers keep the systems running, and interface with CASA. It's a long time since I was RTO/A for NSW; back then, the NSW State Association met monthly - tho I doubt it really needed to, even then - and far less now, with internet.

 

4. I suggest it's a separate subject, but as far as a location for something like Natfly, it's a fact of life that the east side of the divide is subject to easterly stream weather a considerable percentage of the time, whereas it's more usually clear west of the divide. The suggestion of Cudal as a possible location may not be silly, as a venue for natfly, if it's available; but whether it's preferable to Narromine or Temora I couldn't say; it would depend very much on what facilities are available at what cost. But this discussion is really quite irrelevant to the location of a central office, for which the standard of living for the staff would surely be a major consideration.

 

5. The RAA setup involves a lot of make-work in that it requires re-registration. That hardly contributes anything to the airworthiness of the fleet, and it prevents the technical Manager from attending to more important matters, which will shortly be required by the SMS - things like defect reports, ADs etc. By contrast, GFA registration is a one-time thing; you pay for the paperwork for the annual airworthiness inspection instead - and the filing of the returns from the inspectors. The RAA system is downright stupid, in my estimation.

 

 

[jetjr]

Cudal is not available, nor is there much in the way of facilities there

 

Also its prone to fairly poor winter weather.

 

Nearest RPT is YORG also know for its position in the worst place possible for weather in the vicinity.

 

A good point raised which escapes many from larger centres, is the value of any major structures on regional airfields is questionable, need to be careful spending much there as you will be unlikely to be able to sell it later.

 

RAA needs to sort out current directions before looking at new ways to build a spiritual home. BUT a plan would be good and allow steady spend of money per year over flyins, training etc. ie dont spend each year money @ Temora when final plan is Charleville ........for example.

 

 

[kgwilson]

But, if the project is never, never run, we'll never, never know and be stuck in Canberra forever. So, on this forum, lets just enjoy kicking some ideas around, fre-form, rather than dismiss the concept because RA-Aus has a few other trifling, short term issues .

I did note the cheesy grin but getting an all encompassing RDBMS & end to end business processes going with all information available to members and on line access for completing every possible business and regulatory requirement is not trifling and without the appropriate strategy and vision is also not short term.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

KGW,

 

I salivate at the sound of RDBMS, etc. Reminds me of the real business world. Let's try and avoid SAP though our financial reserves would go up in a puff of German smoke.

 

Thing is though, the skills and experience set of people who could contribute to the proper systematization of RA-Aus and those of Members who are happy to kick around where we should be based and physically checking out the short list, are perhaps different skill sets - not mutually exclusive but different. Some of us could happily attack either but the Systems analysis, design selection and implementation does call on a specific skill set that is not resident in all RA-Aus amateur pilots.

 

That's my argument as to why we can do them both, simultaneously. It is not one or the other, in time we must do both projects - and probably a few more.

 

 

[Oscar]

Oh, yes indeedy - avoid SAP, Peoplesoft, Sebel. I have had first-hand and regrettable experience of two Peoplesoft implementations (Uni of Sydney, Uni of NSW first-hand and they are obscenely costly). The small IT firm of which I was a co-Director developed a web-delivered RDBMS-based full-enterprise business process management system for less than $500k for a significant Australian consulting/engineering company ( $50m annual turnover) with offices in several Australian States, China, New Zealand and Dubai. The company (now owned by WorleyParsons) was sufficiently impressed that they made us an offer to become members of the company that we couldn't refuse - though I decided to retire rather than live permanently in Sydney again..

 

I personally don't want to get back into the saddle as a business process analyst/systems analyst, having spent from about 1978 through to 2006 or so doing that plus major project management, but I'd be happy to sit in to help guide the development of an RAA system. I live two hours drive from Canberra, so I can even do the FtF stuff..

 

HOWEVER: I have long, long experience of the fact that it is simply not possible to develop an effective business process management system without extremely thorough analysis and specification of the transaction process requirements including both the data elements and the process rules. The best programmers in the world cannot deliver a good system if they do not have an adequate specification of what the system needs to do. Unless RAA were to be serious about the system development and not take the 'let's just get a couple of web-page designers to knock something up' approach, count me out.

 

In fact, I think that a seriously effective development could be achieved for probably a couple of hundred $k, possibly less. It's simply not going to happen for $50k, or even $100k. If RAA are prepared to embrace the idea that they will have to spend serious $$ for a result, then it's possible to scope the project and develop a putative budget; if RAA thinks it can be done by two web-designers working for corn chips and Red Bull, forget it.

 

 

[kgwilson]

SAP is a big ERP system that is very rigid and would not be at all suitable. It is RDMS based but is a system or in modern geek speak an APP all be it a bloody big APP or in reality many APPs. I had some experience trying to implement SAP in a previous life. Until the fateful decision I had managed a fully integrated system from forecasting through to final sales of a manufacturing operation. Everything was automated & integrated from receipt of raw material to final delivery. I will always remember our German analysts saying "It must be done zis vay. Nossing can be chanchd." The unfortunate thing is that it was and is "flavour of the month" in ERP systems ( the Germans do a great sales pitch to company directors who know nothing about operations & processes) but requires organisations to modify processes to suit the system. I engineered my own redundancy. This was 2005 & the original integrated system SAP was to replace is still in operation at this plant today. There are numerous other infinitely cheaper systems & databases available that could be modified to suit even those that run say on an Oracle RDBMS.

 

The current executive and management are unlikely to have even the most basic skill sets for determining requirements so the employment of REAL professionals to define this is essential. What we must provide is the knowledge and process requirements of our business which is where a project to establish our vision, strategy etc comes in.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Oscar, Your analysis is exactly the sort of thing the sub-committee need to work through. Some comments on what you've written.

 

. . . I can't really think of any reason for RAA to stay in Canberra, other than perhaps lobbying, which I don't believe it has ever done well (or maybe - at all?).

If you listen to Eugene Reid in particular he will tell you that there was in fact a tremendous amount of lobbying with considerable success. That lobbying was what got us from below 300 ft to up to 10,000 ft and many many other benefits/privileges. But for McCormick, we might by now evern have transit of CTA. Steve Tizzard, our immediate past CEO, felt that he achieved wonders because of his fabulous contacts at CASA in Canberra. For those of us who were observers of the "wonders" we might be less convinced. Pretty hard for me to see anything that was achieved during Tizzard's time other than wrack and ruin. Of course now the Sport Aviation Office is not in Canberra but in Brisvegas.

 

Nor do I hold a brief for any other particular site, other than that I believe that any HQ location needs to be sited where it will be most effective at performing its key tasks.

Nor do I (but I wouldn't object if YMND was chosen ). If the Committee's eventual choice shows some bias it will not be well accepted by the far-flung, 13 demi-gods who sit at the top table.

 

. . . I'll list what I think are the significant factors that should be considered . . .1) Accessibility by the membership. Rationally, this does not necessarily mean 'physical accessibility' as in - the most convenient place for members to be able to walk through the door. How many members visit - or feel they would need to visit - RAA HQ in, say, a year? I suspect it is a very low percentage, and with advances in IT-based teleccomunications, this is becoming less and less. So, accessibility in general terms may well be better achieved by ensuring that RAA HQ has very good telecommunications capability, with good local IT back-up etc.

Agree. I'm reminded of my mantra that if I ever have to walk into a bank, something has failed. Everything done on the 'net or, as a fallback, a telephone conversation. RA-Aus should be the same: online, self-service for the simple stuff like re-rego and membership renewal.

 

Could you imagine the staff getting anything done if they had as few as 1% (100) of the Members "dropping in for a coffee and a chat" per week?

 

However, we should not be going the other way and putting RA-Aus somewhere that the bulk of members couldn't fly in if they chose. Add to that thinking the convenience of holding NATFLY adjacent to the RA-Aus permanent Office rather than hauling all sorts of stuff the 200+kms from Canberra to Temora or 400 kms to Narromine?

 

I would see down the track an opportunity for CFIs/SIs and L2/L3s/L4s gathering at the RA-Aus base for briefings/training and accreditation. Courses for Pilots and L1 need to be done in the regions where the Members live for them to be genuinely accessible.

 

2) Attractive to recruit and retain high-quality staff. If RAA retains a 'centralised' staff model, then the HQ needs to be located somewhere where the sort of staff RAA needs, will be happy to live and work. A complex one, because of course people's tastes vary, and you can't please all of the people all of the time.. Cost of relocation, climate, steady real-estate values, proximity to 'interesting' venues etc. would all play a part. Obviously, if RAA can operate on a more decentralised staff model (and I personally believe it can), then many of those issues diminish as problems..

This is an important one but we know that Staff turnover happens for many reasons. It is even healthy to have some turnover to keep things fresh and bring in new ideas. However, a move away from Canberra is likely to involve a high level of redundancies and would need to be considered carefully in any relocation. The new location must offer reasonably good employment opportunities for partners of staff and good education opportunities for their children. A location like Narromine, with Dubbo City (pop. 35,000) 20 minutes away may gain an advantage over Temora (pop. 4,000).

 

The employment resources model that has formed in the dark recesses of my thinking is a central office facility lead by the Chief Executive (whatever the title) with an Administration Manager and clerical staff. The clerical support of the Technical and Operations Managers wold be centrally based and lead by the Admin Manager with Business/Management Accounting, IT and Company Secretary competencies).

 

The Ops and Tech Managers will be doing their best work when they are out of the office. I see them working with Regional Committees to ensure quality standards are achieved and maintained. If they were in the central office more than one week a month then it may indicate an issue with priorities.

 

3) Cost and value. Intertwined, of course, but both need to be considered. For instance, establishing a completely new facility even fairly cheaply say at an airfield somewhere might well result in expenditure that could not later be effectively recovered. Conversely, a flash suite of offices in a sought-after location might not in reality improve RAA's performance of its key tasks any better than something far more modest. Assets are only assets if they are negotiable! (There are plenty of 'technology parks' that have been established with high expectations, that languish for occupancy).

Good points. Over-capitalising at an airport when GA is generally in decline and perhaps even RA also waning is a risk. However, we are planning for this to be the permanent home for RA-Aus so resale value is of less interest than acceptable functionality. To be the permanent home, we will look to owning the land and the building that sits on it. A lease less than 99 years would seem to me to not meet our permanency objective. We also need to understand the permanency of the airport and surrounding town. Mining towns come and go. Sadly, even agricultural towns come and go especially if it comes down to sold off water rights.

 

RA-Aus stands for low-cost flying and that requires a low cost central administration - we currently do not have a low cost central administration due to the widely recognised lack of modern systems. We are also going to have to get an element of "User Pays" into our administration fees. If you want to ignore the internet and do everything by paper and snail mail, the fees should start to reflect the different cost structures. If you want a nice glossy paper mag to take into the loo with you rather than a tablet version then that privilege is going to get quite expensive for you in the near future.

 

4) Symbolic quotient. Does RAA need - and would it get value from - having a high-visibility symbolic HQ? Is there a ROI factor that should be considered? By way of explanation: North Sydney has ( or certainly used to have) a high symbolic value as a location for IT companies; if you had flashy offices in North Sydney, you were considered a 'heavy hitter' in the IT game in the 90's and noughties. Effectively, you were purchasing cachet by installing yourself there. Whether it's North Sydney or Narromine - would it make any difference to RAA's perceived importance to say CASA / the Minister for Transport, make Recreational Aviation more attractive to new members etc. Hell, the current RAA HQ is literally a stroll from the Fairfax media major newspaper the Canberra Times offices - but I don't see RAA being consulted or quoted very often, unless there is an accident involving an RAA aircraft.

Short answer, NO. Longer answer: you are spot on about North Sydney and, for the big law and accounting firms, the right part of the Sydney CBD. Fyshwick is well located with the Adult Video industry (Porn) and some other light industry. I don't think that has been a positive or negative. I don't place any value on "Image". CASA, Dept of Transport and the Minister will be much more impressed by sound argument, good governance and safety record than grandiose premises.

 

5) Opportunity cost. As with any enterprise, any cost for one element means a reduction in the opportunity to invest that cost in another element. RAA exists ( or at least SHOULD exist - though one at times wonders whether this has been the guiding principle in its management at all times since its inception) - to serve the interests of its members. What is the mix of expenditure that maximises RAA's services to its members, and where in that mix does the cost/value equation of any form of HQ reside? The answer to that might well require Solomon-like wisdom, but it's not a question that can be answered without at least some consideration.

I see the move out of Canberra being a cost-saving exercise as well as "getting the fundamentals right". All that is needed for this exercise not to distract from the main game of getting systems right is management. Mark Clayton is going to need to delegate a great deal of the work on this project and in the systems area but keep in touch and in control of both. That is what managers do.

 

Don

 

 

[Oscar]

Don - what can I say but 'a chapeau' (or for those who think the original phrase is 'wanky' - 'I tips me lid'. I hope people are following this thread with interest, I think we are really getting somewhere with it. (And my father was a Kurri Kurri lad, so Maitland is kind of close to the family DNA, but I'll probably be traversing a bit west of it on my usual hops).

 

KG: 100% correct. I can only talk about Peoplesoft, but when it comes down to it for that system, experienced IT people can see it is a motley collection of apps. developed on Oracle, most of which need serious modification to work in any actual enterprise environment. At USyd, where I was consulting as a Project Manager for a number of projects mostly to do with on-line educational delivery, they had when I started there a home-grown financial system that actually worked well; I could use it for my project management budget control. After something like 12 months into the Peoplesoft implementation, the USyd management realised that they were in deep cacky and sent one of their top bods (who happened to be a mate of mine) to research the Peoplesoft implementations in a number of US universities. He came back and reported that typically, a Peoplesoft implementation had cost $40m over the purchase price in adaption - and that even then, individual Departments had resorted to using their own Excel spreadsheets for budget control (as I, and many of the faculties, had already done!) .

 

The ludicrous rigidity of the Peoplesoft design required that, to get to my monthly budget expenditure and project budget balance, I had to go in through the 'Goods Received' module! I won't go further with this, other than to say: it became apparent that under Peoplesoft, USyd (a $500m/year turnover enterprise) would not have known on any day where its finances were to within 10% at best. If you think I am critical of the implementation, you should see what the NSW Auditor-General had to say..

 

There is no way that RAA can hope to pick up a developed application that will do the job. It will have to be developed; it is possible that the cost of such development might be somewhat returned by on-selling (or alternatively, offering bureau services) to other recreational aviation organisations that have the same combination of circumstances. That would be cream on the cake, frankly; I think that RAA could get value for investment just on improving its own performance.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Oscar, we also have an historical paper issue. So, we need an effective document management system with old paper records searchable online and, for the first time ever, backed up! The new system of course would be all digital.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I know for a fact that there are Board Members watching this thread with interest. Like most threads on here it wandered in and out of focus a bit but I believe there is a great deal of usable thinking that has been committed to writing that will be of use in jump starting the project.

 

 

[Oscar]

Oscar, we also have an historical paper issue. So, we need an effective document management system with old paper records searchable online and, for the first time ever, backed up! The new system of course would be all digital.

Don, I know that there has been some work put in to digitising the current paper-base records - but the flaw there has been that no work has been done to defining data elements and recordng the data in usable data fields. It is all scanning of documents into .pdf s. There is some value in that: it will require a data capture programme to get the information into fields that can be imported into a RDBMS, that can be perhaps sent in digital form to a bureau service. However, this is an example of where a lack of strategic planning makes expenditure less than effective.

 

Document management should be a subset of the business process rules, and is extremely important in providing auditability of the processes.

 

 

[Oscar]

Don - here's a thought way out of left field.

 

What if RAA considered thinking about its HQ administrative functions and its 'value added' member services as disparate functions? An administrative HQ sited for maximum efficiency for that purpose, and an airfield-based facility that supports activities such as Natfly, L1/L2/home builder/instructor training? All of RAA's administrative functions do not require proximity to actual aircraft/flying facilities; the other functions, do.

 

RAA 'HQ' in/near Brisvegas. RAA 'hands-on' operations in shared facilities with SAAA at Narromine... Too silly to consider?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Definitely worth considering. There are some of the Old Guard who consider the SAAA as the real enemy. I think there is great synergy possibilities with the SAAA in particular but also with some of the others like HGFA and GFA.

 

 

[Nick Evison]

Definitely worth considering. There are some of the Old Guard who consider the SAAA as the real enemy. I think there is great synergy possibilities with the SAAA in particular but also with some of the others like HGFA and GFA.

Agreed, i would like to pay only once for insurance but it seems like i will have to join HGFA and RAA seems sillyand quite unfair when you can only fly one aircraft at a time. If all four merged together and truly looked after ALL members interests we really would be onto a winner. Financially makes lots of sense too.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

This was on the cards well and truly back in 1983 when the meeting was be held at the SAAA Fly In at Mangalore. It seemed at the time that all sporting disciplines were ready to come under one banner for representation to the then dept while maintaining their independence as such. But this was shattered when George and his friends rolled up and insisted that their AUF setup was the ducks guts and with the persistence of a pit bull started a 3 year crapfight until every one just gave up and the AUF got its way and that has finally taken us to what we have today.

 

Old Guard paranoia! very real! When I was at Airventure a few years ago I ran into Eugene and he went into a super rant of how the SAAA wanted to take us over and cause all sorts of problems. I find that hard to believe as who in their right mind would want to take on the RAAus with all its problems that will take years to sort out. Even if we asked them all humble and like to please help they would probably slam the door in out face now.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Even if we asked them all humble and like to please help they would probably slam the door in out face now

 

spot on ozzie

 

words from one of old bloke 2007

 

quote neil the rules and regs are going to bite us on the arse unless we as an organization get the administration to follow our rules and regs that are written by short sighted idiots unquote

 

how rite he was

 

so by shifting hq you are going elevate the problem to a new home

 

you are not going to loose paper work bullxxx

 

you are not going to have planes flying that are not airworthy bullxxxx

 

you are not going to have l2 l3 that pass any mods and don't have to be accountable

 

you are not going to have a tec manager that when informed off problems simply send letter civil matter

 

you are not going to have any bull in the new building

 

I feel that this is a scam to take a lot off people off the real problem of the raaus as the administration cant make up their minds as what to do next

 

deviate the members thinking and the problems go away bullxxx

 

neil

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Great thread!

 

But surprisingly no-one has yet mentioned the only sensible choice for our 'Spiritual home'.

 

The place that has everything a sport aviation movement could dream of -

 

• Central to the (East Coast) RAA membership distribution
   
   
  
• Has a pristine ready-built all-weather sealed runway and a grass cross-strip
   
   
  
• Plenty of space to build on-airport
   
   
  
• Has a Town/Shire Council that has been demonstrating their active support for Rec Aviation for three decades
   
   
  
• A Council that is so supportive they'd probably give us the land lease at no cost if we transfer there and bring employment opportunities
   
   
  
• Has been running a highly popular and well supported annual fly-in for ultralights, trikes, gyros and hang-gliders since 1986
   
   
  
• Has virtually 365 days per year of excellent flying weather - west of the range
   
   
  
• As safe a flatland flying area as Australia offers - outlandings anywhere and everywhere
   
   
  
• For flight training centres - there'd never be a noise complaint
   
   
  
• Nearby lake where waterski/powerboat and seaplane/floating hull operations are approved
   
   
  
• Is a pleasant three hour drive from Brisbane and one hour from Toowoomba
   
   
  
• Is on a main arterial route for logistics and supplies
   
   
  
• Has a good school and public facilities in general
   
   
  
• Plenty of accommodation in town and nearby towns
   
   
  
• Did I mention a very supportive Council that's keen to do business? (it's impossible to overstress the benefits of having a supportive Council)
   
   
  
• Median property price - $220,000 - lower than anything mentioned previously
   
   
  
• And it's not just the Council - the locals are as friendly as you could wish for
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Great thread!But surprisingly no-one has yet mentioned the only sensible choice for our 'Spiritual home'.

 

The place that has everything a sport aviation movement could dream of -

 

• Central to the (East Coast) RAA membership distribution
   
   
  
• Has a pristine ready-built all-weather sealed runway and a grass cross-strip
   
   
  
• Plenty of space to build on-airport
   
   
  
• Has a Town/Shire Council that has been demonstrating their active support for Rec Aviation for three decades
   
   
  
• A Council that is so supportive they'd probably give us the land lease at no cost if we transfer there and bring employment opportunities
   
   
  
• Has been running a highly popular and well supported annual fly-in for ultralights, trikes, gyros and hang-gliders since 1986
   
   
  
• Has virtually 365 days per year of excellent flying weather - west of the range
   
   
  
• As safe a flatland flying area as Australia offers - outlandings anywhere and everywhere
   
   
  
• For flight training centres - there'd never be a noise complaint
   
   
  
• Nearby lake where waterski/powerboat and seaplane/floating hull operations are approved
   
   
  
• Is a pleasant three hour drive from Brisbane and one hour from Toowoomba
   
   
  
• Is on a main arterial route for logistics and supplies
   
   
  
• Has a good school and public facilities in general
   
   
  
• Plenty of accommodation in town and nearby towns
   
   
  
• Did I mention a very supportive Council that's keen to do business? (it's impossible to overstress the benefits of having a supportive Council)
   
   
  
• Median property price - $220,000 - lower than anything mentioned previously
   
   
  
• And it's not just the Council - the locals are as friendly as you could wish for
   
   
  

 

 

[ATTACH]27665[/ATTACH]

Oh, Hell! I was keeping quiet about the SW edge of the Darling Downs! Not at all sure I want you buggers in my stamping ground!

 

 

[Oscar]

This was on the cards well and truly back in 1983 when the meeting was be held at the SAAA Fly In at Mangalore. It seemed at the time that all sporting disciplines were ready to come under one banner for representation to the then dept while maintaining their independence as such. But this was shattered when George and his friends rolled up and insisted that their AUF setup was the ducks guts and with the persistence of a pit bull started a 3 year crapfight until every one just gave up and the AUF got its way and that has finally taken us to what we have today.Old Guard paranoia! very real! When I was at Airventure a few years ago I ran into Eugene and he went into a super rant of how the SAAA wanted to take us over and cause all sorts of problems. I find that hard to believe as who in their right mind would want to take on the RAAus with all its problems that will take years to sort out. Even if we asked them all humble and like to please help they would probably slam the door in out face now.

Wasn't George off chasing his errant Ultrabat? - but yes, trying to talk calmly to George when he was in in full voice ( i.e., always..) was like to swim up a firehose. Yet, George helped the re-write of Part 103 ( I think it was) and became one of the best-versed people in Australia regarding the regs. that affect us all - better than most of CASA's own staff. About 18 months before George died, I was actually working with him on a vision for a commercial service to provide full admin. support to sports aviation bodies that would have been a simple pick-up for RAA, it could have pretty much offered a turn-key system with a fixed price per member/aircraft. RDBMS-based, web-delivered.. then he got sidetracked on the Blanik life-conversion project and it sort of died off, but the principles were sound and the design starting to work out rather nicely.

 

There's no reason that individual sports aviation bodies have to meld their administration, but co-operative use of physical facilities makes damn good sense. For teaching practical skills that any maintainer needs to know is no different for SAA, RAA, GFA etc. Securing an AN bolt is no different no matter whether it's on VH-reg, RAA-reg etc. aircraft, lock-wire techniques are the same, glass/metal/wood repairs are the same.. The room, chairs, seats, coffee and tea facilities for class-room activities are the same for us all. A residential facility for those undertaking training are no different: we all - no matter to which organisation we happen to belong - need the same sort of beds, toilets, toothbrush holders.

 

I don't believe that the idea of shared physical facilities for what may be best termed the 'hands-on' aspects of Recreational aviation needs to be seen as any one group capitulating to another. No one group of sports aviation has the need for 24 x 7 use of such facilities and unused time for any such facilities is wasted investment. If, for example, RAA were to approach SAAA with a decent proposal for co-operative use of their existing facilities (and perhaps offering by way of inducement, some additional investment in the facilities), the principle of symbiosis says the nett gain to both organisations is more than the intangible value of retaining independence.

 

HitC above mentioned the great value of having the local Council on-side in regards to the choice of any physical facility for a 'home airfield'. It's a good point. Though I personally have fond memories of gliding from Narromine, I hold no other brief for there (and in fact belong to the Darling Downs club, so his preferred home site is actually closer to my power-flying 'heart') - there is something to be gained by all the sports aviation bodies combining to provide a 'critical mass' situation at a particular site. A Council that had inherited the title of the Council with the 'home' of Sports Aviation, isn't going to lightly give that up. As it happens, Narromine is pretty well accessible to the bulk of RAA members, and although it is hardly an exciting site from a social POV, (when I used to glide there, when we'd go into the local pub for a drink, you needed to find a parking space between the utes and the Combine Harvesters, and it was the only place I ever visited that was STILL playing 'Blue Hills' episodes every morning between the stock sales reports and the country music oldies and goldies programme), if your business there is training, that really doesn't matter that much.

 

For sheer enjoyment of visiting an RAA HQ facility and 'hanging with the guys', I think it would be hard to beat Hervey Bay as a site offering great accommodation, views out of the aircraft etc. Bundaberg has great seafood and good accommodation.. However, if one looks realistically at the likely 'drop-in' rate of RAA members - NO site is ever going to suddenly become a hive of incidental 'drop-in' activity, even if it offers the only Cap and T-shirt sales outlet... so, people, let's try to look at this whole issue on a business basis rather than an emotional one, and push for the best bang-for-the-buck option.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

That bloody Ultrabat, more than several times it was a source of entertainment.

 

It took some time but I think finally the penny dropped for George as far as his attitude doing more harm than good. But a lot of damage had already been done. If you were working on the Sport Aviation one stop effort you may be aware of the attempt that Claude Gillard, long time APF president, made to establish a centre at Wangaratta probably a little earlier, late eighties . Same idea basically but he could never get around the animosity of the different fractions. Shame really would have moved every one along efficiently. Stupid egos. It will possibly happen one day when conditions are right. But not within my life time me thinks.

 

 

[Oscar]

I delivered the (second) 'Bat back to Bundaberg last year for an engine implant, and worked on a different aircraft while George worked on the 'Bat II in the same hanger several years earlier, and George was without doubt the guy who won the 'World's Most Annoying Person to be Near' award - with no runner-up, the competition was just not in the same league. However, possibly he was he right person at THAT time for the AUF.

 

The Horscots transcript shows that a too-aggressive/combative approach (read: George!) simply does not work (and certain members of the current Board need to realise that), but neither does total submission. The key is getting the balance right.

 

WRT egos vs. commonsense: I suggest that the times have changed and the vision for everybody in sports aviation (and low-end GA, for that matter) is no longer securing a beachhead for a brilliant new future, but rather of bunkering down and accepting that a sensible shared future is better than none at all. Every time a regional airfield is sold off for development, no one group loses; every incursion into the 'peaceful' operation of aviation activities is a strike against us all.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Great thread!But surprisingly no-one has yet mentioned the only sensible choice for our 'Spiritual home'.

 

[ATTACH]27665[/ATTACH]

No cross-strip! Where is the grass?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Keith Page]

Oh, yes indeedy - avoid SAP, Peoplesoft, Sebel. I have had first-hand and regrettable experience of two Peoplesoft implementations (Uni of Sydney, Uni of NSW first-hand and they are obscenely costly). The small IT firm of which I was a co-Director developed a web-delivered RDBMS-based full-enterprise business process management system for less than $500k for a significant Australian consulting/engineering company ( $50m annual turnover) with offices in several Australian States, China, New Zealand and Dubai. The company (now owned by WorleyParsons) was sufficiently impressed that they made us an offer to become members of the company that we couldn't refuse - though I decided to retire rather than live permanently in Sydney again.. I personally don't want to get back into the saddle as a business process analyst/systems analyst, having spent from about 1978 through to 2006 or so doing that plus major project management, but I'd be happy to sit in to help guide the development of an RAA system. I live two hours drive from Canberra, so I can even do the FtF stuff..

 

HOWEVER: I have long, long experience of the fact that it is simply not possible to develop an effective business process management system without extremely thorough analysis and specification of the transaction process requirements including both the data elements and the process rules. The best programmers in the world cannot deliver a good system if they do not have an adequate specification of what the system needs to do. Unless RAA were to be serious about the system development and not take the 'let's just get a couple of web-page designers to knock something up' approach, count me out.

 

In fact, I think that a seriously effective development could be achieved for probably a couple of hundred $k, possibly less. It's simply not going to happen for $50k, or even $100k. If RAA are prepared to embrace the idea that they will have to spend serious $$ for a result, then it's possible to scope the project and develop a putative budget; if RAA thinks it can be done by two web-designers working for corn chips and Red Bull, forget it.

How come a consultant got into the Unis?

 

Where were all the computer deans/professors/tutors researchers?

 

They should have been doing that work and teaching at the same time.

 

I thought a uni is a place ones goes to learn.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page