Relocating the office...where to?

turboplanner · March 16, 2014

You're right Col, and following horse, cart, some more google references might be Nero, fire, Rome, fiddles.

Scotty 1 · March 16, 2014

Also it has been said that a main reason for RAAus to relocate to an airfield is to hold training courses from the one site. If those courses were to include L1 or L2 or even flight instructors courses, would those members that were required to attend those courses be prepared to foot the travel bills or would they expect RAAus to refund the travel expenses. Can't see the folk in WA being happy to foot the bill to travel to the east to attend training courses. Can't see the members being happy to refund those expenses either. Maybe it would be a bit more financialy responsible to take the courses to the members.

Is there a need to relocate the office. Some say the rules we have to work under in the ACT are prohibitive, how long before they don't like some other rule (or council) we have to work under if we move and want to move again. Should this be a topic of discussion now or are there other things that need attention before we move to our spiritual home. Maybe we should fix what is broken now and not worry about pipe dreams.

Cheers Scotty

Keith Page · March 16, 2014

" I fear she doth protesteth too much . . . ". W Shakespeare

Looks like we are getting lessons in "Old English" I get a lesson from Turbo yesterday - now we have a lesson in "Old English".

Must say "Old English" was not my best subject.

Now for a special extract, " Fairies flutting through the forrest putting love juice in tiger's eyes to make them fall in love with elephants". What use is that rot but it is "Old English".

Regards

Keith Page.

I will go back to the thread now, english lessons over.

robinsm · March 17, 2014

Also it has been said that a main reason for RAAus to relocate to an airfield is to hold training courses from the one site. If those courses were to include L1 or L2 or even flight instructors courses, would those members that were required to attend those courses be prepared to foot the travel bills or would they expect RAAus to refund the travel expenses. Can't see the folk in WA being happy to foot the bill to travel to the east to attend training courses. Can't see the members being happy to refund those expenses either. Maybe it would be a bit more financialy responsible to take the courses to the members.Is there a need to relocate the office. Some say the rules we have to work under in the ACT are prohibitive, how long before they don't like some other rule (or council) we have to work under if we move and want to move again. Should this be a topic of discussion now or are there other things that need attention before we move to our spiritual home. Maybe we should fix what is broken now and not worry about pipe dreams.

Cheers Scotty

so move 5km to Queanbeyan in NSW just up the road, not all round the state.......!! n asnd keep the same staff, not train new ones and get rid of the expertise we already have. Its not rocket science folks...!!!

DonRamsay · March 17, 2014

Surely Don, this is all horse before the cart stuff.

Col,

Look along any highway these days and you will see putting the cart (car) before the horse (float) is the modern way to do things.

A little more seriously, I don't see the need to do everything in a serial fashion. We need a lot done in a short time and the only way it can happen is with a number of committees working hard and in parallel.

Despite anything else we don't even have a clear picture of what RAA will be doing in 5, 10, 20 years and the current board is seemingly stuck, or silent, about its view of the future or what it gages the feelings of the membership.

I agree that the project of deciding where RA-Aus should be based is not the top of the priority tree but that doesn't mean it should never become a priority. That point has been raised and answered a few times in previous posts.

What is particularly apt though is your question of what RA-Aus will be in the foreseeable future - say 10 years. Who can see further than that? My idea of what RA-Aus will be in 10 years is only one view among 10,000 but it seems fairly clear to me:

I don't foresee major changes in aviation legislation that would see CASA (or its replacement) take administration of Recreational Aviation inhouse.
I also don't see RA-Aus going bankrupt even though we are going through a period of using up financial reserves at the moment.
I do see RA-Aus having a similar reason for being as presently exists.
I don't see RA-Aus branching out into entrepreneurial ventures.
I do see us "sticking to the knitting" - that is, maintaining and enhancing Operations and Technical Manuals that will be a good balance of risk and reward (non-financial).
I see us becoming much more efficient in our Administration through smart, self-service, web-based systems.
I think we could well see RA-Aus membership plateaued or even declining over the next ten years.

What all that tells me is that we could chose a location based on logical, relevant, appropriately-weighted criteria and thereby identify a permanent base for RA-Aus.

In all the 180 posts so far I haven't heard anyone say that we should stay in FYSHWICK because nowhere else in Australia would be more suitable.

RAA is at the moment a two headed horse - one part licencing, registration and discipline - the other, advocacy in looking after members entitlements and access to safe, affordable aviation.

Agreed. However, we create a lot of admin work for ourselves by tying how RA-Aus is funded to renewal of membership and aircraft registrations. GA doesn't do that and RA-Aus needn't either. We'd be better off getting the initial issue of Registrations and Pilot Certificates right than having the bulk of our efforts in routine clerical work. That all begs the question of how RA-Aus is funded without extracting cash for membership and registration renewals. A slightly circular argument because if you didn't have to go through the annual renewals you wouldn't need as much revenue to cover administration costs. The real kicker though is the grossly inadequate funding from CASA.

The reason for having a Magazine is the need to have official communications between the Board/Management and Members, e.g. Notices of Meetings and much more. The Magazine could be delivered as an iPad/Android App and broadcast to a much wider audience very cheaply. Notices can be sent via email and the website but a few of our members might actually have to recognise we have entered the third millennium and get a bit of 'net training from their grandchildren. That could knock more than $50 p.a. off everyone's fees. The liability Insurance through our group scheme is, I believe, vastly cheaper than any individual could ever achieve.

The rest should be funded partly by a user-pays approach and largely by CASA as they do for GA .

RA-Aus could then devote its cash and energies to lifting the level of safe recreational aviation through education and training.

Your committee may be better off working out what RAA is rather than having a narrow view on one minor aspect of RAA operations.

I can't claim ownership of either the Committee or even the idea. It was Kaz who kicked this discussion off but it is an idea that has been around for years - perhaps its time has come?

Anyhow, the quesiton you ask here is perhaps the work of the Constitution Review Committee? I agree it must be done if the CRC's output is to be valuable. No point re-writing the Constitution just to correct the grammar.

DonRamsay · March 17, 2014

Does the average RAA Aus member really care where the HQ is?. Most of us never go there, contact only by mail or email, and really want to be left alone to fly. Seems that we might be thinking of spending members funds on something that may be better off left lie and have the funds spent on more important things like reducing membership fees, etc etc.

It is possible this could lead to real cost savings. Canberra is an expensive place to live and work. It is expensive to get to and from. Real Estate is very expensive both for staff and the Association. Salaries and conditions are driven by the major employer in the ACT with generous superannuation and entitlements.

The Office was valued at $1 million but valuations have come down in recent years due to the GFC. It is still possible we could get a better facility for the same or even lesser investment. Not having to transport and accommodate staff for Natfly would also be another saving. It is possible that some government support would be available to further defray costs. There could be de-centralisation incentives from State Governments. Some Councils in Regional areas just want to sell off their airports for real estate dollars but some are very committed and supportive of aviation.

Oscar · March 17, 2014

Can I propose an alternative view about Natfly? While I can appreciate the idea that we might be in a small way (and let's face it, it is and will remain a small way) emulating Oshkosh, is it worth considering the advantage of in fact having Natfly as somewhat of a moveable feast (and trading off the additional cost of having translocatable facilities against other possible advantages)?

Here's the reasoning.

Firstly, any one permanent site will obviously continually favour one set of members over the rest. I suggest that if Natfly were to move around from year to year, it might generate more enthusiasm for members in the area it is to be held to attend, plus give other members an incentive to try flying to somewhere different, just for the challenge. Heck, we might even get the stimulus of different areas competing with each other to put on a 'bigger and better' Natfly each year...

However, I see a perhaps larger advantage in using Natfly as a tool to generate community awareness across a broader spectrum of areas of the desireablilty/ viability of having recreational aviation activities in their region. We know that Councils have a tendency to regard airfields as potential greenfields for urban development; but Councils also love events that publicise their region and bring in money to the local retail economy. One only has to look at the eternal competition between cities and towns for inclusion as venues for sporting etc. events to see this effect at work. If Natfly is 'secured' to one airfield, then everywhere else scratches 'aviation' off their list of potential advertising and hence, the attraction of having all that 'unused' airfield area on their doorstep is diminished. The regional (at least) media will be more encouraged to give the event some decent coverage if the story is more 'Natfly is coming to town' stuff than 'It's Natfly again this weekend' - if you get my drift.

I suspect that commercial participants at Natfly would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their wares to a broader audience than just 'the faithful' who turn up each year at the one permanent site.

And finally, the whole idea of RAA being somehow entrenched in one area at the expense of others, would be at least reduced. I reckon it's worth consideration.

rhysmcc · March 17, 2014

Makes sense that courses would be done at various locations to cover the whole of the membership

Can I propose an alternative view about Natfly? While I can appreciate the idea that we might be in a small way (and let's face it, it is and will remain a small way) emulating Oshkosh, is it worth considering the advantage of in fact having Natfly as somewhat of a moveable feast (and trading off the additional cost of having translocatable facilities against other possible advantages)?Here's the reasoning.

Firstly, any one permanent site will obviously continually favour one set of members over the rest. I suggest that if Natfly were to move around from year to year, it might generate more enthusiasm for members in the area it is to be held to attend, plus give other members an incentive to try flying to somewhere different, just for the challenge. Heck, we might even get the stimulus of different areas competing with each other to put on a 'bigger and better' Natfly each year...

However, I see a perhaps larger advantage in using Natfly as a tool to generate community awareness across a broader spectrum of areas of the desireablilty/ viability of having recreational aviation activities in their region. We know that Councils have a tendency to regard airfields as potential greenfields for urban development; but Councils also love events that publicise their region and bring in money to the local retail economy. One only has to look at the eternal competition between cities and towns for inclusion as venues for sporting etc. events to see this effect at work. If Natfly is 'secured' to one airfield, then everywhere else scratches 'aviation' off their list of potential advertising and hence, the attraction of having all that 'unused' airfield area on their doorstep is diminished. The regional (at least) media will be more encouraged to give the event some decent coverage if the story is more 'Natfly is coming to town' stuff than 'It's Natfly again this weekend' - if you get my drift.

I suspect that commercial participants at Natfly would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their wares to a broader audience than just 'the faithful' who turn up each year at the one permanent site.

And finally, the whole idea of RAA being somehow entrenched in one area at the expense of others, would be at least reduced. I reckon it's worth consideration.

I think we have arrived at the best approach for RAA to reach and serve the majority of members across the nation;

RAA HQ based in Brisbane, close to CASA, bigger employee base, RPT access for those who need to attend (board members etc), good services (fast internet for our new IT) etc
NatFly hosted by different towns/fields each year, allowing greater exposure to members and the wider public
Training forums, again hosted at different fields across the country to improve the exposure to the members.

rankamateur · March 18, 2014

Smartest thing you have posted in a long while Oscar!

March 18, 2014

I always cringe a little when we talk of national flyin's.......CASA wont allow us to access controlled airspace cause we don't have the training and putting words in their mouth, don't have the organisation or airmanship/learned control to allow safe access....but in our eyes its perfectly ok for us all to converge around Australia into 1km^2 and perfectly ok to have circuits that run to more aircraft movements in a couple of days than any of the secondary GA airports in our major city's would see in a fortnight of normal flying levels for them......

Is it just me or can anyone else see the irony here? either CASA has it wrong and we are as good as we think we are....or its an accident waiting to happen.......then, as we have seen in times past we often get ring ins at these flyins and they don't always play nice with RAAus folk and assume levels of competence of us and or superiority of them that is inappropriate.

I may be risk averse (Nah! not really would fly little planes if that were true!) but having been to a few of these fly ins the risks don't to me undershoot the benefits of going! Regular(ish) fatalities during a normal year will always get CASA attention, but a multiple aircraft accident that might well involve non participants who just came for a look see is going to create all sorts of "under the microscope" questions that I personally doubt we might well survive.....

So, at least for me, moving HQ to an airport is unlikely to achieve anything in my case as an ordinary member. If however there were chapter based flyins that by nature would reduce the amount of participants and give a degree of separation from HQ then I'd be more likely to attend....

Andy

Oscar · March 18, 2014

Seeing as there seems to be some interest in this concept - here's a bit of 'blue sky thinking' (to coin a phrase that might resonate!)

RAA sells off its Canberra HQ and acquires a more modest office suite near Brisvegas - utilising the idea of (some) de-centralised office services to reduce the amount of space needed.

Then, it uses some of the cash from the HQ sale to set up a semi-trailer - one of those ones with an expanding side arrangement such as the motor-racing fraternity use - that is equipped with both some 'office space' so that RAA can conduct member business on-site at various airfield-related events, and that also carries the infrastructure for holding things like RAA seminars, on-line conferences etc. . This gets trundled around to not just the Natfly event but to regional fly-ins organised by State RAA members. Adds a bit of pizzaz to regional fly-ins AND encourages members to fly-in and become more familiar (for those, such as me, who would like a bit of a learning-curve before heading off to Natfly for the first time) with a busier sky situation. and the locals who come out for a gander at all the little airplanes get to see a 'professional' level of administration etc., which can't do RAA any harm at all.

Once upon a time, whole orchestras would go on tour around a region, bringing 'culture' to those unable to get to the capital city. Very popular. Art shows go on tour to regional galleries. And with a great big, nicely-painted up trailer with RAA emblazoned on it, a lot more advertising bang-for-the-buck than just one building on one airfield perpetually.

Keith Page · March 18, 2014

Oscar you have been busy thinking I will go along with what you are thinking.. The semi trailer is great --- would be good for seminars plus there is something for the public to see.

We must have something that young people can touch and play with.

Give Brisbane the flick for the head office too expensive and a pain to get about-- what about Caboolture or go further north on the coast be close to airports for work shops.?

Andy... bit for the record. You should hear the big fellows when they have not got controlled airspace to help them.

You want to listen to their stuff ups in country airports, no one is thinking for them they have to do it all themselves.

Got me stuffed why CASA puts us down.

Regards

Keith Page.

rankamateur · March 18, 2014

And again!

M61A1 · March 18, 2014

Seeing as there seems to be some interest in this concept - here's a bit of 'blue sky thinking' (to coin a phrase that might resonate!)RAA sells off its Canberra HQ and acquires a more modest office suite near Brisvegas - utilising the idea of (some) de-centralised office services to reduce the amount of space needed.

Then, it uses some of the cash from the HQ sale to set up a semi-trailer - one of those ones with an expanding side arrangement such as the motor-racing fraternity use - that is equipped with both some 'office space' so that RAA can conduct member business on-site at various airfield-related events, and that also carries the infrastructure for holding things like RAA seminars, on-line conferences etc. . This gets trundled around to not just the Natfly event but to regional fly-ins organised by State RAA members. Adds a bit of pizzaz to regional fly-ins AND encourages members to fly-in and become more familiar (for those, such as me, who would like a bit of a learning-curve before heading off to Natfly for the first time) with a busier sky situation. and the locals who come out for a gander at all the little airplanes get to see a 'professional' level of administration etc., which can't do RAA any harm at all.

Once upon a time, whole orchestras would go on tour around a region, bringing 'culture' to those unable to get to the capital city. Very popular. Art shows go on tour to regional galleries. And with a great big, nicely-painted up trailer with RAA emblazoned on it, a lot more advertising bang-for-the-buck than just one building on one airfield perpetually.

Such a vehicle could also house a erectable control tower sort of thing complete with radio comms. Might be useful for the higher volume of traffic if parked in a manner where they can see the airfield and circuit area.

DonRamsay · March 18, 2014

Oscar, your argument for Natfly as a moveable feast has a certain aptness considering when it is held.

That aside it is a very persuasive argument that I could readily support. I personally have been to a few Natfly events at Temora and while a great location, it would be good to go to othe rvenues in future. I have to caution that it would be a bit of a nightmare for whoever gets the massive job of Natfly co-ordinator compared with going again at Temora.

The Temora Council gives massive financial and in-kind support to Natfly. And we have a couple of Temora residents who put in a full 12 month effort when the event is at Natfly. If you were to speak with Carol Richards, Tony King and Jill Bailey and still come away with the same point of view, you would have my complete support.

There have been suggestions of using a professional event management company to run Natfly. There are plenty of arguments each way that I wouldn't want to canvass on this thread but it would make a relocatable Natfly more feasible if less profitable.

Having Natfly at the RAA HQ is of course just one reason for having the HQ at an airport.

I'm also warming to the notion of the RAA Base being at an airport within cooee of Brisbane. While it will be handy to be geographically close to CASA it might be a disadvantage if we were too close, e.g. Within walking distance. Like your in-laws, it is good to have them close enough for them to be useful but you don't want them on your doorstep every time they get a bright idea. Also, with the current parliamentary Review going on there is no guarantee that CASA will be around in a couple of years time and we could be back to talking to the NTSB and the Federal Dept. RAA staff in Canberra might even view a move to Brisbane as "doable" compared to a move to Temora or Charleville.

rankamateur · March 18, 2014

whoever gets the massive job of Natfly co-ordinator compared with going again at Temora.

TK58 would probrably find Watts Bridge fairly convenient and the rest of us might be surprised how pleasant it is too!

rhysmcc · March 18, 2014

Oscar you have been busy thinking I will go along with what you are thinking.. The semi trailer is great --- would be good for seminars plus there is something for the public to see.We must have something that young people can touch and play with.
Give Brisbane the flick for the head office too expensive and a pain to get about-- what about Caboolture or go further north on the coast be close to airports for work shops.?

Andy... bit for the record. You should hear the big fellows when they have not got controlled airspace to help them.

You want to listen to their stuff ups in country airports, no one is thinking for them they have to do it all themselves.

Got me stuffed why CASA puts us down.

Regards

Keith Page.

I think the semi-trailer is a great idea, but to me it's an option instead of a HQ based at a field. The whole idea would be for RAA to get out and do the work shops at regional fields all across the country.

Oscar · March 18, 2014

The coms. room idea is a very good one - maybe a 'mezzanine', and with a small room adjacent with a window and speakers so the casual visitors can wander up and realise that it's not all just a mob of people in aeroplanes luckily missing out on hitting each other? And then you add a balcony so that at the end of the day (last light), the controller calls the faithful to prayer over the Tannoy: 'No more flying, last one to the pub has to go back and tie down all the aircraft..'

Old Koreelah · March 18, 2014

... a semi-trailer - one of those ones with an expanding side arrangement such as the motor-racing fraternity use - that is equipped with both some 'office space' so that RAA can conduct member business on-site at various airfield-related events, and that also carries the infrastructure for holding things like RAA seminars, on-line conferences etc. . This gets trundled around to not just the Natfly event but to regional fly-ins organised by State RAA members. Adds a bit of pizzaz to regional fly-ins AND encourages members to fly-in and become more familiar (for those, such as me, who would like a bit of a learning-curve before heading off to Natfly for the first time) with a busier sky situation. and the locals who come out for a gander at all the little airplanes get to see a 'professional' level of administration etc., which can't do RAA any harm at all.Once upon a time, whole orchestras would go on tour around a region, bringing 'culture' to those unable to get to the capital city. Very popular. Art shows go on tour to regional galleries. And with a great big, nicely-painted up trailer with RAA emblazoned on it, a lot more advertising bang-for-the-buck than just one building on one airfield perpetually.

At last! The 1948 Show!

Thank you Oscar for developing this idea. The "movable feast" going on the road is possibly the best way to save and grow our association- by involving many members who always felt distanced from the RAA-whether physical or otherwise.

rhysmcc · March 18, 2014

Not quite sure that providing flight services would be the direction RAA should run with this

jetjr · March 18, 2014

Expensive toy....fun idea though

Plenty of companies and reps visit field days, conferences and deliver technical training one after another with far less infrastructure.

Training similar, resources freighted to site, trainer and laptop arrive later.

Access to good freight links is a key parameter for regional HQ in my mind too. Some regional centres difficult and expensive to move stuff to and from. Somewhere on the Bris-Melb, Bris-Adelaide, Syd-Adelaide route, Parkes is becoming a key hub and most of it passes through Dubbo.

DWF · March 18, 2014

RA-Aus has two main functions or streams. For simplicity lets call them Management and Members.

Management looks after Admin, Ops, Tech, SMS, functions RAAus has agreed to undertake or provide and day to day operations.

Members rarely (if ever) need to physically visit Management offices.

Therefore, from the members point of view, it does not matter where the office is located.

So, logically, the office should be located where it can operate most effectively, efficiently and economically - this includes access to stakeholders (primarily CASA?), access to economic transport, access and conditions for staff, relatively low cost accommodation, etc.

Somewhere near Brisbane airport would have to rank highly - but I do not discount places like Caboolture, etc.

However, I do not think relocating is a high priority unless there is some compelling economic or operational reason of which I am unaware. RAAus has enough, much higher priority "irons in the fire" at present and moving would just be a big distraction.

Most of us are mere males and only able to do one thing at a time but I do note that there are a few ladies at HO now who seem to be stirring things along a bit ... but i digress.

I do not think that just because Natfly is at a particular location that HO should be there also. Although there may be some advantages during the event they are, in my view, outweighed by the disadvantages during the rest of the year.

You are either tied to that location for Natfly forever or will need to move HO each time you move Natfly.

There are good reasons for keeping Natfly at the same location for at least a number of years running.

You will not get the same local support, infrastructure and efficiencies if you move it every year.

Wherever you have it there will be those who cannot make it and/or complain. What do you think the chances are that we will ever have it in WA?

I think the Board and Management priority should be the development, promulgation and implementation of a STRATEGIC PLAN.

At the moment the hierarchy seems to be running around in circles putting out bush fires with no clear plan of where we are going or how to get there. "If you don't know where you are going, how will you know when you get there?"

The next priority of the Board should be a review of the structure of RAAus. I have some thoughts on this but will start a new thread and see if it "runs".

Notice what is missing from the above? MEMBERS

At the moment the association is doing very little for the members unless it is to cause heartache and despair (for some) over aircraft rego or enforce some sort of "compliance". Where is the communication, involvement and fun stuff for members?

The computer gremlins have destroyed the rest of this post that took me forever to write, so I will have to try to regain my train of thought and have another go .... soon.

Safe and Happy Flying

DWF

PS. A semi trailer may be a bit of overkill but I favor the idea of RAAus trainers and officials making regular visits to local members/clubs rather than having one centralised training/education facility.

DWF · March 18, 2014

RA-Aus has two main functions or streams. For simplicity lets call them Management and Members. Management looks after Admin, Ops, Tech, SMS, functions RAAus has agreed to undertake or provide and day to day operations.