fly_tornado Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 no http://www.raa.asn.au To be honest, it's a bit harsh but a fair call after all the criticism I have leveled at them 1
Guest Maj Millard Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 no http://www.raa.asn.auTo be honest, it's a bit harsh but a fair call after all the criticism I have leveled at them FT you would have open access to the public face of the website but no access to the second level as you are not a member. Very simple solution really....pay your bucks and enjoy the lot.
fly_tornado Posted November 21, 2015 Author Posted November 21, 2015 my bad, the site was down for a few hours and my paranoia kicked in 1
kasper Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 my bad, the site was down for a few hours and my paranoia kicked in Yes FT ... the RAA are ever so sensitive that they decided to work out how to identify any IP address you may use and block just you ... best use of member money??? 1 1
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 F Who????...What does the T stand for ????..... Im guessing that might well be the conversation....assuming there was one at all......
ahlocks Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 ...............my paranoia kicked in Hmmm.... maybe you sensed I might pay a visit after a fairly lengthy hiatus.
Keith Page Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 F_T ...With all this criticism and you mean to say you are not a member, so why are criticising? Really what the situation is you have your nose stuck in someone else's business. Regards, KP.
fly_tornado Posted November 23, 2015 Author Posted November 23, 2015 Keith, I actually thought the RAA had turned over a new chapter after the years of incompetence and then MARAP came out this year and I realized that the RAA is doomed to be run into the ground by well meaning but clueless and ultimately ineffective board. I have asked Ross several times that he release the board discussion leading up to the release of MARAP, as of today no one from the board has the courage to release that information.
Geoff13 Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 FT Possibly if you where a member and wrote to the board you may received what you are after. As a non member who does nothing but stir the pot on public forums, I would be very disappointed in my board if they gave you what you obviously have no right to see. 2
fly_tornado Posted November 23, 2015 Author Posted November 23, 2015 Geoff as an owner of a #19 aircraft you would be bound by the restrictions of MARAP. As the discussions surrounding MARAP haven't been made public, the members still don't know if MARAP will one day be applied to #19 aircraft. If MARAP is applied to #19 aircraft in the future, your plane suddenly becomes a massive liability to any potential buyer due to the rebuild you did, and essentially worthless. Now would you be interested in knowing more about MARAP?
Geoff13 Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 What I am interested in is actually none of your business. But as a member I am more interested in my board spending their time giving that information to member when asked through the correct channels. Which I might add they appear more than willing to do. No board should give out internal discussions willy nilly to any $hitstirrer whothinks that they have a right to know. I am quite sure that where you to join then the board would be more than happy to pass on information that they find relevant to you. I would not expect that information that was available prior to your joining date to be made available other than the result of the discussions. 4 1
fly_tornado Posted November 23, 2015 Author Posted November 23, 2015 The old board was big on non-disclosure clauses and it was a large reason why CASA was forced to act on the registry. And look at the c0ck ups that uncovered, hundreds of illegally modified planes. The RAA seems to be going down the same path over and over. Eventually CASA are going to have to audit the RAA pilot registry and find out how many are legal. That day comes sooner if the board continues to make bad decisions and try to cover it up.
kasper Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Geoff as an owner of a #19 aircraft you would be bound by the restrictions of MARAP. As the discussions surrounding MARAP haven't been made public, the members still don't know if MARAP will one day be applied to #19 aircraft.If MARAP is applied to #19 aircraft in the future, your plane suddenly becomes a massive liability to any potential buyer due to the rebuild you did, and essentially worthless. Now would you be interested in knowing more about MARAP? Mods - please note - I am not attacking the person in the form of FT but the post content FT - YOU ARE WRONG MARAP does not apply to 19- reg aircraft, never has. The announcement that it did was AN ERROR and the MARAP process DOES NOT APPLY TO 19- reg aircraft Can I be any plainer than that?
fly_tornado Posted November 24, 2015 Author Posted November 24, 2015 I think you are wrong about that, the "that announcement was a mistake" line took a couple of days to appear
eightyknots Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 no http://www.raa.asn.auTo be honest, it's a bit harsh but a fair call after all the criticism I have leveled at them Why oh why, F-T, do you feel compelled to heap "all the criticism" upon RA Aus? ...even to the point of starting this virtually pointless thread? There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism: that is the way the world improves at all levels. What is not so helpful is to "level" all your criticism upon an organisation without proposing good ideas for improvement. Furthermore, if you have in "all the criticism" things which you may consider to be helpful, the way to have a proper voice is to become an RA Aus member and then seek to influence the organisation for good from a membership perspective, rather than doing so from without. In summary, criticism is only helpful if it is possible to present possible ideas for a constructive, useful change. Please consider. 2
kasper Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 I think you are wrong about that, the "that announcement was a mistake" line took a couple of days to appear Yes it did take a couple of days - a couple of days I spent talking to the Tech manager, getting him to go back to CASA and get them to understand that WHAT THEY directed to be announced was incorrect ... then it all started flowing correctly - FACTUALLY MARAP has NEVER applied to 19- reg aircraft - the changes to CAO95.55 to create MARAP are to paragraphs that can not EVER apply to 19- reg aircraft ... 1. the announcement was an error 2. the tech manager was in error in agreeing to the CASA directed announcement 3. BUT MARAP legally has never and cannot on the CAO95.55 apply to 19- reg aircraft And sorry but you just earned my very first use of he ignore button. Bye bye
octave Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 The old board was big on non-disclosure clauses and it was a large reason why CASA was forced to act on the registry. And look at the c0ck ups that uncovered, hundreds of illegally modified planes.The RAA seems to be going down the same path over and over. Eventually CASA are going to have to audit the RAA pilot registry and find out how many are legal. That day comes sooner if the board continues to make bad decisions and try to cover it up. Can I ask FT (although of course you don't have to answer), if you are a current member of RAAUS?
fly_tornado Posted November 24, 2015 Author Posted November 24, 2015 @kasper here was the response from Darren, seems pretty clear to me. How you could believe this is a clerical error is beyond me. http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/marap.132799/#post-483316 I'm not financial (ie I'm not flying so no need to maintain my licence) whilst I am rebuilding my planes, why is that relevant? Former member, future member how does that make my criticism less valid? 1
Guest Maj Millard Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Mods - please note - I am not attacking the person in the form of FT but the post contentFT - YOU ARE WRONG MARAP does not apply to 19- reg aircraft, never has. The announcement that it did was AN ERROR and the MARAP process DOES NOT APPLY TO 19- reg aircraft Can I be any plainer than that? Told him that already.....he don't listen too well.......
fly_tornado Posted November 24, 2015 Author Posted November 24, 2015 Seems pretty straight forward to me
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now