Query to RAA CEO

[turboplanner]

If the legal advice proves to be defective then the legal advisor's PI policy will respond. If the directors have obtained and acted on legal advice then that is all they can reasonably do.

Firstly, I know Don referred to the current board members as directors, but they are not.

 

Neither are they a board of directors

 

So let's get that puffery out of the way.

 

They are a board of MANAGEMENT, and some might argue, with things like the Operations manual drifting in the wind, that they ought to leave these grandiose plans alone and start managing.

 

It's not often that a lawyer is forced to resort to his PI policy, but it's very common for people who hire a lawyer to lose cases, and those cases are often lost because those people did not give the lawyer the correct facts, or all the facts relating to the case.

 

I can't remember the first time Don told us the board members had received legal advice, and I lost interest in his repeated repeats some time ago, but, apart from the fact that no member so far has reported seeing that advice, or which lawyers in which field it came from, I'd suggest that several, if not many "show stoppers" have been unearthed in this thread since the lawyers were briefed and saw whatever draft they saw.

 

So this holistic "legal advice" looks to be well and truly out of date, and today would well be "Drop it like a hot rock NOW!"

 

 

[kasper]

I missed the edit time. While the second sentence above is ok, I may be wrong about PI insurance. What I said holds true about insurance brokers, but I think that lawyers may be immune from prosecution for poor advice ( they are in the club) and so don't hold PI insurance, so your only recourse is to the Law Society. There is a compensation fund.

And of course the claim has to be from the legal entity that obtains the advice ... that would be RAAus Inc. Sure hope RAAus Ltd is the same legal entity under the corporations law or the new entity has no recourse because it will not have obtained the legal advice ... just asking

 

 

[Keith Page]

How silly...and we are told this is better

and that is what we being told to vote. YES to..

KP.

 

 

[gandalph]

Off topic just a bit

 

Kasper, did you get your rego mess sorted?

 

 

[kasper]

Off topic just a bitKasper, did you get your rego mess sorted?

Yes ... and no.

Yes the Tech Office AGAIN admitted they did not understand the CAO and gave 100% incorrect advice to the CEO who passed it on to me.

 

Also what was written to me as a change to Section 9.1 of the RAAus Tech Manual in letter dated 30 April 2015 was in fact not the Tech Manual ... so my aircraft was actually placed on the register during a period when there actually was NO requirement to display reg on the aircraft AT ALL ... and the grandfathering of old registrations may mean it never has to be displayed ... entirely due to HORRENDOUS drafting on the part of the RAAus Tech Manager ... really looking forward to seeing after-the-event-and-too-late-to-complain-or-change new tech manual in full - the one page graphic of the changes in this months mag has me looking for a wall to headbutt but if they want 4 inspections to get a homebuilt onto the register and they have to be by L2 AND ABI just imagine how much fun its gonna be (and costly) for those living several hours away from an L2 ...

 

And in addition - unfortunately whilst speaking with Jarad it appears that half the paperwork required to support the registration forwarded to RAAus that I had thought to have been received on the basis they gave me an invoice for the regn and sent the reg card to me now is either misfiles or had never been received.

 

So 1 step forward, several backwards and I am still uncertain on whats the situation as I now await the receipt of a letter in the post ... which is a bit of a cheek seeing as they managed to advise me the regn was cancelled by email but I have to wait for Australia Post.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just getting a bit of perspective here; kasper is not alone with this embarrassing standard of performance, and that's what you elect a board of management to sort out quickly. And I don't mean get Kasper's aircraft back in the air and let the lost correspondence, poor drafting, and poor processing system continue to stress members for even more years.

 

 

[Oscar]

kasper, CASA does (very frequently) not understand the CAO's; moreover, it frequently 'interprets' them in ways that accord with what it happens to WANT to do at the time, NOT what they actually say.. There were two people who really understood them - and one of those - George Markey - is no longer with us. The other, is Dafydd Llewellyn.

 

Why? - because John Sharpe, when Minister for Transport, had these two spending years (unpaid, I might add, not even traveling expenses!) undertaking the re-write of a substantial part of them. CASA Legal Office has spent an inordinate amount of time resisting bringing that rewrite fully into force. To be fair, I think you need to cut Darren some slack here; he inherited a 'system' ( to give it a credibility it totally does NOT deserve) which is so archaic in operation that it is an insult. Add to that, having to 'best guess' what CASA thinks is acceptable. The relationship between CASA and RAA may be summed up as: CASA saying that 'you have the delegated responsibility - unless we disagree with your decision, in which case, our ruling applies.'

 

Though I have never met him, my impression of Darren is that he is making his best efforts to act in the interests of members. May I humbly suggest, that rather than arcing up against him, you could use you knowledge - which is obviously very considerable - to mutually help through your situation and thus materially assist in expanding his understanding for the general benefit of members?

 

 

[kasper]

kasper, CASA does (very frequently) not understand the CAO's; moreover, it frequently 'interprets' them in ways that accord with what it happens to WANT to do at the time, NOT what they actually say.. There were two people who really understood them - and one of those - George Markey - is no longer with us. The other, is Dafydd Llewellyn.Why? - because John Sharpe, when Minister for Transport, had these two spending years (unpaid, I might add, not even traveling expenses!) undertaking the re-write of a substantial part of them. CASA Legal Office has spent an inordinate amount of time resisting bringing that rewrite fully into force. To be fair, I think you need to cut Darren some slack here; he inherited a 'system' ( to give it a credibility it totally does NOT deserve) which is so archaic in operation that it is an insult. Add to that, having to 'best guess' what CASA thinks is acceptable. The relationship between CASA and RAA may be summed up as: CASA saying that 'you have the delegated responsibility - unless we disagree with your decision, in which case, our ruling applies.'

 

Though I have never met him, my impression of Darren is that he is making his best efforts to act in the interests of members. May I humbly suggest, that rather than arcing up against him, you could use you knowledge - which is obviously very considerable - to mutually help through your situation and thus materially assist in expanding his understanding for the general benefit of members?

I would beg to differ.

The two areas where RAA Tech have gone slightly mad were not even hard interpretations

 

1. stated in the Magazine article regs that ceased applying 4 years previous

 

2. stated no weightshift can ever be registered as 95.10 ... despite there being registrations going back to June 1988 and nothing that changed in 2011 with the change to introduce HGFA into 95.10 registrations removed RAAus

 

Sorry but Darren also had as much slack as I can stomach ... writing a letter to me 5 months after a serious drafting error was directly stopping me register my aircraft with WRONG information and letting that stand for a year on top of the other bits - sorry no more slack.

 

 

[Oscar]

Having kept moderately abreast of all the recent commentary on this thread, it seem to me that the bone of contention has devolved to the number of directors to be appointed.

 

Competing numbers of directors have been suggested, without any discussion - from either side - of actually what the RAA might NEED, to be an effective Board. There is NO 'silver bullet' here, of the number that changes any Board from being ineffective or prone to unreasonable influences, or suitable/appropriate/effective for the nature of the organisation.

 

So - let's cut to the chase here.

 

What skills (indicated by successful professional experience) does RAA need to have encompassed in the Board to have an effective Board, that could be reasonably be expected of any individual to bring to the Board?

 

I'll take the first plunge into the water here, to open debate:

 

• Corporate management of at least a SME
   
   
  
• Financial strategic planning at the level of a SME;
   
   
  
• Technical understanding of the CAOs and RAA technical requirements;
   
   
  
• Flying operation for both general ops. and FTF ops;
   
   
  
• Organisation representation and development ( loosely: P.R.)
   
   
  
• Member representation.
   
   
  

 

 

That comes to six members: as it happens, between the five and seven being hotly debated here.

 

So: who has a different list?

 

 

[Oscar]

I would beg to differ.The two areas where RAA Tech have gone slightly mad were not even hard interpretations

 

1. stated in the Magazine article regs that ceased applying 4 years previous

 

2. stated no weightshift can ever be registered as 95.10 ... despite there being registrations going back to June 1988 and nothing that changed in 2011 with the change to introduce HGFA into 95.10 registrations removed RAAus

 

Sorry but Darren also had as much slack as I can stomach ... writing a letter to me 5 months after a serious drafting error was directly stopping me register my aircraft with WRONG information and letting that stand for a year on top of the other bits - sorry no more slack.

kasper:

 

I can't find any fault with your annoyance. BUT: it might be mightily instructive, to delve into the reasons for this situation having developed: is it 100% Darren's fault, or has the whole RAA regulatory administration mechanism been no more than treading water furiously under its weight of archaic systems for years?

 

I spent a number of years developing a web-enabled, relational-databased business management system for a far larger than SME company ( a subsidiary recently of Worley Parsons, who are major players..) to move them from a paper-based management to a modern IT-based management milieu, and the RAA system is so far below reasonable as to be a sad joke in these times. That is not cheap, but given the way in which the former management of RAA built up a financial surplus without investing in decent systems, in my view it stands condemned for its failure to progress the organisation as its needs grew. That is no consolation to you in your current situation - but it is, I believe, symptomatic of the need for major change. Those who know the history of RAA management will recognise the charge that for too many years, it was under autocratic rule...

 

 

[coljones]

Having kept moderately abreast of all the recent commentary on this thread, it seem to me that the bone of contention has devolved to the number of directors to be appointed.Competing numbers of directors have been suggested, without any discussion - from either side - of actually what the RAA might NEED, to be an effective Board. There is NO 'silver bullet' here, of the number that changes any Board from being ineffective or prone to unreasonable influences, or suitable/appropriate/effective for the nature of the organisation.

 

So - let's cut to the chase here.

 

What skills (indicated by successful professional experience) does RAA need to have encompassed in the Board to have an effective Board, that could be reasonably be expected of any individual to bring to the Board?

 

I'll take the first plunge into the water here, to open debate:

 

• Corporate management of at least a SME
   
   
  
• Financial strategic planning at the level of a SME;
   
   
  
• Technical understanding of the CAOs and RAA technical requirements;
   
   
  
• Flying operation for both general ops. and FTF ops;
   
   
  
• Organisation representation and development ( loosely: P.R.)
   
   
  
• Member representation.
   
   
  

 

 

That comes to six members: as it happens, between the five and seven being hotly debated here.

 

So: who has a different list?

Os, no matter how you cut it it will still be a beauty contest + what do you do if you get 7 lawyers because everyone thinks that there should be at least one lawyer but the electorate is divided on which one - and they all get up?

Democracy - a real bitch at times

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Having kept moderately abreast of all the recent commentary on this thread, it seem to me that the bone of contention has devolved to the number of directors to be appointed.Competing numbers of directors have been suggested, without any discussion - from either side - of actually what the RAA might NEED, to be an effective Board. There is NO 'silver bullet' here, of the number that changes any Board from being ineffective or prone to unreasonable influences, or suitable/appropriate/effective for the nature of the organisation.

 

So - let's cut to the chase here.

 

What skills (indicated by successful professional experience) does RAA need to have encompassed in the Board to have an effective Board, that could be reasonably be expected of any individual to bring to the Board?

 

I'll take the first plunge into the water here, to open debate:

 

• Corporate management of at least a SME
   
   
  
• Financial strategic planning at the level of a SME;
   
   
  
• Technical understanding of the CAOs and RAA technical requirements;
   
   
  
• Flying operation for both general ops. and FTF ops;
   
   
  
• Organisation representation and development ( loosely: P.R.)
   
   
  
• Member representation.
   
   
  

 

 

That comes to six members: as it happens, between the five and seven being hotly debated here.

 

So: who has a different list?

Oscar this is a very good start. Arguably the first two (management and strategic planning) might come in one individual. The technical understanding item would be good if it came with some legal training as well, even if of the Law 101 and Contract Law 101 variety. I feel that your list might reasonably be covered by five individuals, depending on who gets elected.

In other companies you get your first directors elected (say five) then identify the gaps. If the gaps are serious the board appoints a pro tem director to cover that gap and he or she is put up for election at the next AGM with an explanation as to why the appointment was made. The members can then ratify the board's choice or kick them out. That is why I would favour five to start with, otherwise you might get six or seven with overlapping skill sets and no room to move.

 

 

[Oscar]

Os, no matter how you cut it it will still be a beauty contest + what do you do if you get 7 lawyers because everyone thinks that there should be at least one lawyer but the electorate is divided on which one - and they all get up?Democracy - a real bitch at times

#1 on that! But: if 'legal expertise' is ONE of the desired directorial requirements ( and I'm inclined to agree - any organisation with aeronautical operations would get the Gold Star with Elephant Stamp for being able to get, say, Spencer Ferrier aboard), then members are voting on the best candidate for that position on the Board... so six of those seven, won't get appointed. And - for my money, I'll train with a CFI of an FTF that knows how to teach me to fly properly, rather than telling me what the legal position is with precision..

 

 

[turboplanner]

The problem Oscar, is that board members are elected from Members, so your raw material is peer group based, and rarely will you get people with diverse but specific skills.

 

By hiring employees with the specialised skills, the board of management gets those skills long term and only has to manage them.

 

The key to the numbers argument is probably based in a desire not to have the cliques of the past, so the distaste for the domination of three, or the combination for three plus two, where the three clique will automatically roll the two.

 

Coming out of the discussions on this thread a six member board may be ideal; as someone has previously said, if the board is deadlocked the motion doesn't get up, so the three clique can't just run the show to their own agenda.

 

So I'd suggest six is the minimum; above that there's less chance of a clique, although what is obvious is even with 13, a small clique can infest itself and run the show.

 

There will always be dud members in a committee, no matter how many you have; the way to clear them out is to vote them out, but the members need to take ownership and see that dud as their own fault, and make sure they get the numbers up to actually vote. The manana RAA culture is the cause of the duds, not the duds or the other board members trying to do their best under the circumstances, so you can't weed them out using the constitution.

 

 

[coljones]

#1 on that! But: if 'legal expertise' is ONE of the desired directorial requirements ( and I'm inclined to agree - any organisation with aeronautical operations would get the Gold Star with Elephant Stamp for being able to get, say, Spencer Ferrier aboard), then members are voting on the best candidate for that position on the Board... so six of those seven, won't get appointed. And - for my money, I'll train with a CFI of an FTF that knows how to teach me to fly properly, rather than telling me what the legal position is with precision..

In a beauty contest we get the voters interpretation of what beauty is - a red head lawyer, brunette, blond, a lawyer from FNQ, one from tassie, a failed divorce lawyer and one who is either a criminal lawyer or a criminal lawyer (or both) and no Spencer Ferrier nor one from WA (who has never trusted anyone from over there - as opposed to down there)

But I jest

 

 

[Oscar]

Oscar this is a very good start. Arguably the first two (management and strategic planning) might come in one individual. The technical understanding item would be good if it came with some legal training as well, even if of the Law 101 and Contract Law 101 variety. I feel that your list might reasonably be covered by five individuals, depending on who gets elected.In other companies you get your first directors elected (say five) then identify the gaps. If the gaps are serious the board appoints a pro tem director to cover that gap and he or she is put up for election at the next AGM with an explanation as to why the appointment was made. The members can then ratify the board's choice or kick them out. That is why I would favour five to start with, otherwise you might get six or seven with overlapping skill sets and no room to move.

PM: overlapping skills would be a bonus, not a negative. An individual might be elected to fill a specific position, but if they also bring serious expertise to the rest of Board deliberations - how could that be anything but advantageous?

 

Here's an example: Bill Dinsmore. A qualified CPA, highly experienced in corporate finance matters. Pilot certificate #1 issued by the AUF. Ex- CFI of Southern Cross Gliding Club. When George Markey was prosecuted (unsuccessfully) for the Mangalore 'Ultrabat runaway' incident, Bill appeared as a witness for the Defence. When asked about his aviation experience, he stated: 14,736 hours and 34 minutes.

 

IF you could get people on the Board with that sort of breadth of experience - how could it not enhance the Board's cumulative expertise?

 

 

[Oscar]

The problem Oscar, is that board members are elected from Members, so your raw material is peer group based, and rarely will you get people with diverse but specific skills.By hiring employees with the specialised skills, the board of management gets those skills long term and only has to manage them.

The key to the numbers argument is probably based in a desire not to have the cliques of the past, so the distaste for the domination of three, or the combination for three plus two, where the three clique will automatically roll the two.

 

Coming out of the discussions on this thread a six member board may be ideal; as someone has previously said, if the board is deadlocked the motion doesn't get up, so the three clique can't just run the show to their own agenda.

 

So I'd suggest six is the minimum; above that there's less chance of a clique, although what is obvious is even with 13, a small clique can infest itself and run the show.

 

There will always be dud members in a committee, no matter how many you have; the way to clear them out is to vote them out, but the members need to take ownership and see that dud as their own fault, and make sure they get the numbers up to actually vote. The manana RAA culture is the cause of the duds, not the duds or the other board members trying to do their best under the circumstances, so you can't weed them out using the constitution.

Please define your six required skill sets - for once, we happen to agree on a metric, but I've defined the skills, I'd like to see your ideal list.. The idea that avoiding a 'clique', seems more based on conspiracy theories than examination of necessary qualities. I guess that conspiracy theories are not wholly discountable - we currently have a democratically-elected ( with exceptions due to electoral quirks) Federal Government rent by conspiring cliques - which to me only supports the argument that election based on geography is totally inadequate to run any sort of 'business'.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

PM: overlapping skills would be a bonus, not a negative. An individual might be elected to fill a specific position, but if they also bring serious expertise to the rest of Board deliberations - how could that be anything but advantageous?Here's an example: Bill Dinsmore. A qualified CPA, highly experienced in corporate finance matters. Pilot certificate #1 issued by the AUF. Ex- CFI of Southern Cross Gliding Club. When George Markey was prosecuted (unsuccessfully) for the Mangalore 'Ultrabat runaway' incident, Bill appeared as a witness for the Defence. When asked about his aviation experience, he stated: 14,736 hours and 34 minutes.

 

IF you could get people on the Board with that sort of breadth of experience - how could it not enhance the Board's cumulative expertise?

I guess what I am saying is that of we leave a couple of spaces vacant at first, it will give the members (with guidance from the directors ) a chance to elect another person or two with very specific skill sets. You cant achieve that in the initial round of elections because no-one knows who will be elected and what the resulting set of board skills will be. There is a danger of getting the six lawyers first up, then what do you do? Or six flying instructors!

 

 

[Oscar]

I guess what I am saying is that of we leave a couple of spaces vacant at first, it will give the members (with guidance from the directors ) a chance to elect another person or two with very specific skill sets. You cant achieve that in the initial round of elections because no-one knows who will be elected and what the resulting set of board skills will be. There is a danger of getting the six lawyers first up, then what do you do? Or six flying instructors!

Good point. If we could all agree on what is a (theoretical) ideal Board make-up, it is impossible that this can be done in a seamless transition from what is now in place. There will have to be a period where the 'old' Board hands over - as it were - to the 'new' Board. That requires a bit of faith from members in the current Board members being people of honest intent to be achieved. That might be a bit of an ask - obviously some of the posters on this thread have no expectation of this - but personally I do have that expectation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Please define your six required skill sets - for once, we happen to agree on a metric, but I've defined the skills, I'd like to see your ideal list.. The idea that avoiding a 'clique', seems more based on conspiracy theories than examination of necessary qualities. I guess that conspiracy theories are not wholly discountable - we currently have a democratically-elected ( with exceptions due to electoral quirks) Federal Government rent by conspiring cliques - which to me only supports the argument that election based on geography is totally inadequate to run any sort of 'business'.

Firstly, here are yours:

 

• Corporate management of at least a SME
   
   
  
• Financial strategic planning at the level of a SME;
   
   
  
• Technical understanding of the CAOs and RAA technical requirements;
   
   
  
• Flying operation for both general ops. and FTF ops;
   
   
  
• Organisation representation and development ( loosely: P.R.)
   
   
  
• Member representation.
   
   
  

 

 

I don't disagree with any of them; the point I was making is that board members are elected from the peer group - RAA members, and not only that but volunteers for election will always be thin on the ground.

 

So in an election environment you will be very lucky to ever get full card of skills, whatever skills you target.

 

So the elected officials are the best the members can find from those who stand, and will usually have a cross section of management and or building/flying skills.

 

However, the specific skills you selected can be employed, and the employee will be there for a lot longer and you will have a more stable supply.

 

What a board of management does is manage those skills and get the job done.

 

 

[Admin]

If you have drfined titles of say 3 board members based on the skillset needed for RAAus it would be much easier. For example if one titled role was "Legal" qthen you would have those 7 lawyers being put forwayd for that 1 titled role.

 

My 3 would be

 

Legal

 

Sales and Marketing

 

Finance

 

The rest of the board i.e. 4 more members would be general aviation/business people and a CEO that was member focused. That's my ideal RAAus management make up

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ian, the test is cast your mind back over the last four or five elections; how many people with that skills cross section put their hands up?

 

Getting your skills through the ballot box is problematic; very much like what we see getting elected as local Councillors - they come from a peer group (the city, town) so you get a peer cross section to work with.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And we have been neatly side-tracked from the real issue haven't we; there's not the slightest indication that despite the holes found in the board's current proposal, they have accepted the situation and will delay any vote, so in reality it's down the path to the cliff edge and hope it flies.

 

 

[Oscar]

It seems to me that you are stating that RAA could only ever get mediocre people onto the Board, so why would (say) seven mediocre people be more effective than (say) five? Seems to me that you are enthusiastically arguing for a camel, when a horse would do the job better...

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, I'm not saying that; I'm currently a member of two Associations with brilliant industry leaders on the committee.

 

What I AM saying is that elected officials come from the peer group, so, for example, if Ian wanted to run this site with a committee, the peer group is the regular users, and there's a broad spectrum of people to choose from, but they in turn must first be prepared to stand and then must succeed in being elected. And in that process you are very unlikely to get a set of people who match the various detailed skill requirement - in other words you're working by hope.

 

Sometimes you get good ones, other times not so good, but suggesting that you're going to compromise the democratic process by rejecting some of the few who do volunteer because they aren't qualified the way you want them to be is problematic, and in real life it might get a life of a couple of elections but by then the good people you rejected are smart enough to call a meeting and boot you off.