R.A.A. Pilot certificate is it correct?

[rhysmcc]

Maybe we could do that in the thread on the issue? Somehow I don't think the members would like a $70 increase membership fee with the option to claim a $70 rebate by switching to digital. What the board has done is a much better option forward, letting those members opt-in to receiving the paper version at the new cost. Yep it was free before but now it's not, just like a lot of things these days.

 

I don't believe the Board has tried to hide anything in regards to the magazine, it's not something new, it's been on the table for months now (was it back in Oct it was voted at the board meeting?).

 

 

[terryc]

Maybe we could do that in the thread on the issue? Somehow I don't think the members would like a $70 increase membership fee with the option to claim a $70 rebate by switching to digital. What the board has done is a much better option forward, letting those members opt-in to receiving the paper version at the new cost. Yep it was free before but now it's not, just like a lot of things these days.I don't believe the Board has tried to hide anything in regards to the magazine, it's not something new, it's been on the table for months now (was it back in Oct it was voted at the board meeting?).

The main point is the mag was never free it was part of the membership fee, in fact it used to be itemised.

 

PS [ I support the new position regarding the mag]

 

 

[rick-p]

If people can't see the forest for the trees it's not up to me to guide them through the maze. I have pointed out anomalies and it's up to those who want to prove or disprove my observations to review the available material. That is the latest magazine and a few of the magazines prior to the latest as they tell the whole story. It's all a matter of timing as to what's actually happened and the decision having been made before due process had been followed. The cart before the horse, so to speak. I have made valid comments and I will be damned if will apologise to anyone. Freedom of speech is still alive in this country.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If people can't see the forest for the trees it's not up to me to guide them through the maze. I have pointed out anomalies and it's up to those who want to prove or disprove my observations to review the available material. That is the latest magazine and a few of the magazines prior to the latest as they tell the whole story. It's all a matter of timing as to what's actually happened and the decision having been made before due process had been followed. The cart before the horse, so to speak. I have made valid comments and I will be damned if will apologise to anyone. Freedom of speech is still alive in this country.

Rick that's just a bunch of words that's long on buzzzzzzzz and very short on any real content......

 

1) What Due Process?

 

2) Where is it defined as process that should be followed, presumably in our constitution or perhaps under legislation? If so, what and where?

 

3) Assuming you can answer 2) How do you know as fact that it wasn't followed?

 

We are not talking forests, or trees or mazes or carts or horses or freedom of speech or any other waffle you care to pack around the crap your serving up....could it simply be that at the end of the day you simply don't like the decision made? If so that's Ok and you're well within your rights to say that and I welcome it. Just don't try and repackage it as something it isn't! What you have posted to me looks like a turd, smells like a turd and your trying to sell it with waffle words as "a rose by any other name"....

 

Seems to me that you are right! There are definitely deceptive practises at play! Happy to withdraw that statement of perception on my behalf if you can offer up a fact or 2 to the 3 questions above... and just as a stretch target...if you find yourself feeling the need to put up or shut up....then feel free to answer the original question "What deceptive practises" WRT the magazine decision, have the board and staff of RAAus applied to the membership?

 

 

[Oscar]

Is the cost of the magazine to RAA members the major issue for the organisation to face?

 

Is it possible that such issues as ensuring compliance with the mandated safety requirements of RAA aircraft so they can keep legally flying, that the questions of PIC competence as an arbiter of the right to fly an RAA aircraft, should be a priority?

 

Does the desire to damn well FLY your aircraft legally, insurably and safely rank higher on your concerns than the cost of Sport PiIot in electronic or paper format?

 

Answers will be judged by the neatest correct entry. But - here's a clue: compliance with legislative requirements have force in law. The cost of Sport Pilot doesn't.

 

 

[gandalph]

He's back! Welcome back into the fold Oscar. It must've been cold out there away from the warm embrace of Rec Frying crew

 

 

[Oscar]

He's back! Welcome back into the fold Oscar. It must've been cold out there away from the warm embrace of Rec Frying crew

Peaceful, productive..

 

 

[facthunter]

Where are these warm embraces? Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

Heated discussions, Hot headed replies maybe that warms the place up but I'm not sure about the embrace part:wink:

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I agree.... I will back off and be more embracing of differing views........... Sorry

 

I also have had time to consider the claims made in context and I can see an area of possible concern... when the idea was first floated I pointed out that the deficit per member (on what we understood at the time) was about $50 a head. In discussions around that time we did mention that the idea could be sold as $50 increase for every member and a $ 50 rebate for those that took digital...... subsequently a $70 pa charge has been discussed and most recently it was announced it will be $90 pa.

 

The reality is that in working to a cost recovery scenario (where there are fixed and variable components) you wont understand your costs until you understand how many subscriptions we need, and people cant tell you whether they will buy a subscription or not until you can tell them what the price will be. and to do that you need to be in or very close to a contracted position....... perhaps in retrospect I should always, and formal comms from the organisations should always have said something along the lines of "subject to change as our costs are understood and locked in"

 

Live and learn

 

Andy

 

 

[rick-p]

Rick that's just a bunch of words that's long on buzzzzzzzz and very short on any real content......1) What Due Process?

 

2) Where is it defined as process that should be followed, presumably in our constitution or perhaps under legislation? If so, what and where?

 

3) Assuming you can answer 2) How do you know as fact that it wasn't followed?

 

We are not talking forests, or trees or mazes or carts or horses or freedom of speech or any other waffle you care to pack around the crap your serving up....could it simply be that at the end of the day you simply don't like the decision made? If so that's Ok and you're well within your rights to say that and I welcome it. Just don't try and repackage it as something it isn't! What you have posted to me looks like a turd, smells like a turd and your trying to sell it with waffle words as "a rose by any other name"....

 

Seems to me that you are right! There are definitely deceptive practises at play! Happy to withdraw that statement of perception on my behalf if you can offer up a fact or 2 to the 3 questions above... and just as a stretch target...if you find yourself feeling the need to put up or shut up....then feel free to answer the original question "What deceptive practises" WRT the magazine decision, have the board and staff of RAAus applied to the membership?

Well I never! I'm certainly not going to lower myself to gutter tactics and name calling, that belongs only in the school yard or question time in the ACT.

 

It certainly is very unbecoming of a board member.

 

I will not pursue this matter any further particularly on that level of a very inappropriate rant.

 

I will leave you with the words 'proper governance' and thereafter rest my case.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Andy.......I am a bit gob smacked, I can remember how you treated Steve Runciman and now you are a board member and people are expressing their views regarding the cessation of the paper magazine, these poor people are getting Andy treatment when their views are expressed regarding the cessation of the paper magazine (however for an individual this cessation will not happen when $90 is exchanged).

 

Now the big question:- Why was the magazine survey completely ignored?

 

Being a board member, I think you should be out helping us not fighting with us.

 

I just feel like we have to cop what the board issues to us and this treatment is justified as "We have to make cost savings".

 

There is one more point you have missed, the current board should be thankful that the old board had a saving plan, just wonder what the mess would be if there was not a $2mil saving, as I understand the situation the savings are diminishing quickly I must hasten to add that Steve was one of the frugal board members.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[biggles]

He's back! Welcome back into the fold Oscar. It must've been cold out there away from the warm embrace of Rec Frying crew

Hmm "Frying " crew .... Surely just a 'slip of the pen' Gandi ..... Bob

 

 

[kgwilson]

Ah So, Not collect. He been frying right airclaft for many moons incruding reap years.

 

 

[biggles]

Ah So, Not collect. He been frying right airclaft for many moons incruding reap years.

Oh I see , he's got a bit of a lithsp there poor chap ..... Bob

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Now the big question:- Why was the magazine survey completely ignored? - KP When was it and what were the results? If you know, please tell.

 

I seem to remember criticism that AUF/RAA were just stockpiling money (ie overcharging members for services) which led to this "reserve". I also remember that our fees went up under SR & ST's administration. The level of compliance went down. The magazine was outsourced. Members were asking "why?" The organisation should have been keeping abreast of 'best practice' to ensure compliance and to keep costs down. Instead it was neglected and cost us a lot in extra wages etc to get back to compliance. Remember all those failed audits that we didn't hear about?

 

 

 

Some of the language from SR on this forum was strident - remember the remark about 'the real Major'? I can see frustration, and I can understand some people upset about having to pay for a print magazine, but is it just a resistance to change, or is there a valid reason. I am on a very slow internet connection, yet I am happy to get an emailed PDF (it may take some time to download) and I can print & bind a copy for my husband, which we can then leave at the clinic or hangar.

 

 

 

I think this Board is doing a very good job with what they inherited. Rego & Pilot Certs are turning around promptly. Costs centres are being dissected much better than they had been previously. One thing I will give SR, is that he started to get costs allocated to rough cost centres, but until now, no one could say how much each function cost (Ops, Tech, Mag, etc), all they could say was Wages & Salaries cost this much.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I agree.... I will back off and be more embracing of differing views........... SorryAndy

Andy I didn't mean for my post prior to this to be aimed at you, I was just commenting in a general sense trying to inject some humour. (Sometimes I think my sense of humour is warped)

 

PS just because you sometimes have a different opinion to others is no reason to back off. I personally don't always agree with you (who can agree with anyone over everything?!) but I DO really appreciate the fact that you are still here posting and putting yourself and your ideas out to be critiqued (spelling?). Don't leave us in a dark spot because we howl you down, at the end of the day at least we have communication:thumb up:.

 

Good on you for having a go and sharing what you do, don't quit doing that because a few people on a forum disagree with how a decision or two have been carried out. Keep up the comms link:pc revenge:

 

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

......Now the big question:- Why was the magazine survey completely ignored?Being a board member, I think you should be out helping us not fighting with us.

I just feel like we have to cop what the board issues to us and this treatment is justified as "We have to make cost savings".......

 

There is one more point you have missed, the current board should be thankful that the old board had a saving plan, just wonder what the mess would be if there was not a $2mil saving, as I understand the situation the savings are diminishing quickly I must hasten to add that Steve was one of the frugal board members.

 

Regards

 

KP.

Keith why do you believe the survey was ignored? Do you know that to be fact or is it yet another supposition? What date was the board decision to change the magazine made? What date was the survey sent out? can something be ignored if it doesn't exist at the time of a decision?

 

As for the rest of your post....I'm not going to repeat all the answers to questions we have already covered that you either didn't agree with or understand.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy I didn't mean for my post prior to this to be aimed at you, I was just commenting in a general sense trying to inject some humour. (Sometimes I think my sense of humour is warped)

PS just because you sometimes have a different opinion to others is no reason to back off. I personally don't always agree with you (who can agree with anyone over everything?!) but I DO really appreciate the fact that you are still here posting and putting yourself and your ideas out to be critiqued (spelling?). Don't leave us in a dark spot because we howl you down, at the end of the day at least we have communication:thumb up:.

 

Good on you for having a go and sharing what you do, don't quit doing that because a few people on a forum disagree with how a decision or two have been carried out. Keep up the comms link:pc revenge:

 

I didn't mean I would back off from posting just back off from Rick because in retrospect I can see he may have an issue...as I described.... but I can also see that he has again completely sidestepped any of the questions....his choice!

 

Andy

 

 

[rick-p]

I didn't side-step anything Andy I just packed up my toys and left because I felt that the discussion had got to a point where it, regardless of what you and I said, was not really going anywhere. I have seen enough conflict over the years that was in respect of serious and life threatening issues and therefore, I don't feel that squabbling over a very low grade issue is appropriate on this forum. My sincere apologises to those of you I have offended but my question or point still remains unanswered. I will leave this topic with a parting comment/ observation/ question to wit:- how is it that the latest magazine has in it an article on the results of a board decision in respect of the magazine when the magazine as I understand it was proof read and printed prior to the recent General Meeting? The magazine also contains the survey taken with respect to a survey as to who prefers hardcopy as opposed to digital. We are not talking cost here we are talking methodology or format of the delivery of our magazine.

 

 

[gandalph]

Hmm "Frying " crew .... Surely just a 'slip of the pen' Gandi ..... Bob

Rec frying seemed to roll off the tongue better than Rec Roasting.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I didn't side-step anything Andy I just packed up my toys and left because I felt that the discussion had got to a point where it, regardless of what you and I said, was not really going anywhere. I have seen enough conflict over the years that was in respect of serious and life threatening issues and therefore, I don't feel that squabbling over a very low grade issue is appropriate on this forum. My sincere apologises to those of you I have offended but my question or point still remains unanswered. I will leave this topic with a parting comment/ observation/ question to wit:- how is it that the latest magazine has in it an article on the results of a board decision in respect of the magazine when the magazine as I understand it was proof read and printed prior to the recent General Meeting? The magazine also contains the survey taken with respect to a survey as to who prefers hardcopy as opposed to digital. We are not talking cost here we are talking methodology or format of the delivery of our magazine.

Rick

 

I presume you have watched the video of the Cessnock GM and/or read the draft minutes. If you had you would have noted that in the formal meeting part, as distinct from the following Q&A part there was no motion or discussion and therefore no decision to be made WRT the magazine. As I have previously identified Board members and general members can ask for a decision to be made by the membership at GM's and AGM's by following the process identified in the constitution. No one did that and hence there could be no decision made because members, including those not attending, must have the ability to review and decide for themselves via proxy, how they will vote. As such it is usual case that a briefing paper describing the motion producers views are provided to the membership along with any other briefing papers that the board may include in support or against the proposed motion. That's how it actually works so that natural justice is provided all members.

 

The board decision you talk of was made at the board meeting after the AGM last year in October, not in any way at the Cessnock GM or most recent board meeting.

 

The survey that the CEO undertook, well after that decision was to enable him to try and get a feel for the subscription take up realities so he could plan the detail around implementing the standing board decision. The board decision wont be changed, unless someone on the board puts up a modification or rescission motion, or the members do as I have described above. I personally will not vote for change or recession unless it fundamentally addresses the issues I see which are sustainability in the broader context of the magazine industry realities and cost to members per issue, and also deals with sustainability for the organisation in terms of returning to an operating surplus.

 

So once more, if you don't want the current decision to stand then you must do something to change it, and that isn't achieved by just posting your displeasure here.

 

Lastly your inference that due diligence was not done is wrong, on what you have provided me to work with

 

Andy

 

 

[rick-p]

Andy, then has the problem been laches in implementing the Board's decision as some 6 months plus has passed since the motion was tabled?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

rick-p, surely you are not now suggesting the issue is it took too long for the digital magazine to be implemented?

 

I look forward to seeing your motion at the AGM regarding providing members "free" magazines and a fee rise of $90.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

If we as members need to pay more in fees to guarantee the viability of our organisation then so be it. Compared to other interest, sporting and Motorsport organisations we get off cheap.

 

Given the fact that the majority of aviators in this country are aged over sixty it's no wonder that there is such resistance to move away from print media. If you need something to read in the dunny buy the Weekly Times.