RAAus election process

[-Rod-]

RAAus Director Elections Link

[kasper]

So, back to Kasper's worries from post #1.RAAus Ltd exists and the election process will continue. It was commenced in line with the Constitution that should govern the process and and will be completed following the process dictated by the Constitution of RAAus Ltd.

 

clipped

So was that your or the old RAAus Inc response to the complaint under the old constitution? Oh or are all outstanding complaints just washed away when the switch occurred?

Oh and if any of the RAAus Ltd directors are reading this please refer to your dear leader (Mick M) for why you might just have ASIC asking you a few questions about HOW you can open and close an election nomination process before the constitution it is called under comes into operations. And you can thank Mick M for pointing out that I had to go through legal channels as near enough is good enough in his opinion so ASIC complaint #95390659 about the directors of RAAus Ltd actions will see just how active and powerful the new regulator is.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Kasper's a lawyer; you're not.

 

 

[kasper]

What a strange unkind world you live in Kasper. Never happy unless you are taking somebody down. Is there nothing positive on your planet?

Yes Don there is positive. The change to Ltd was a good move for many valid reasons BUT it has been handled poorly and continues in changover to be handled in direct conflict with the legal requirements of an Ltd ...

Do not forget that for nearly a YEAR of the draft constitution being open for member input I put forward drafting changes to address articulated problems that ARE now part of the actual constitution ... follow the process and get bagged and ignored. Point of issues of actual practice in direct conflict with the actual word passed and have an outgoing champion of the changes claim I am an entirely negative person.

 

Sorry Don but only the rule of this forum prevent me using my limited vocab in profanity to express just how I feel about your post on me.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I appreciate your restraint Kasper. I even understand your frustrations. When I was on the outside looking in I didn't like what I saw and spent 6 years doing something about it rather than continue to offer valid (to me) criticisms. My unhappy post above was probably provoked by having just read the post you made about the Tech Manual (v4). You know how bad the old Tech Manual was and how out of date it was. Can you imagine how much work Darren and quite a few Board Members (not so much me) put into the rewrite? And then to just read all negatives about the new Tech Manual and proclaim everybody is now "screwed" may have pushed me into that intemperate post you reasonably took exception to.

 

 

[kasper]

I appreciate your restraint Kasper. I even understand your frustrations. When I was on the outside looking in I didn't like what I saw and spent 6 years doing something about it rather than continue to offer valid (to me) criticisms. My unhappy post above was probably provoked by having just read the post you made about the Tech Manual (v4). You know how bad the old Tech Manual was and how out of date it was. Can you imagine how much work Darren and quite a few Board Members (not so much me) put into the rewrite? And then to just read all negatives about the new Tech Manual and proclaim everybody is now "screwed" may have pushed me into that intemperate post you reasonably took exception to.

So now I am in the position of having no actual control over the 95.10 machines I have been modifying and flying for the past 20 odd years ... and if i want to build a new 95.10 I have to find an L2 or 4 to do three inspections, then an L4 to do a final inspection then get the RAA Tech to sign off that they accept that what I designed and built is OK by theym (but of course RAA Tech take no responsibility but have all authroity to refuse) and then I get a permit to test and then I get to hope that after much more form filling and report writing on a 1 off design that I am going to be the ONLY person to ever fly and under the CAO everyone has no responsibility in relation to except me.

Pissed off does not even come close to how I am about the new tech manual - it is SO GA in its overall requirtements and add HUGE overhead on homebuilders at significant cost to the builder for what? to address what exactl?

 

The accident and deaths are root cause to pilto issues not airframe yet now we are SO rapidly sliding into GA old school that we may as well give up.

 

I have the option to sell off the 3axis and migrate to HGFA for the weightshift and I am absolutely gutted that the AUF/RAAus I have been a member of for over 25 years and a pilot certificate holder of for more than 20 is no longer a member organisation and is completely killing off self design

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Again you seem to miss the point (intentionall?) that a L1 can do 3 of the 4 inspections not only L2 or L4.

 

Thanks for your frank views on the rest of it.

 

We can not all be experts on everything and you are arguing with the wrong person if you want to get into questions of aircraft design. My interests and experience is more suited to matters of good governance, finance and IT.

 

I have confidence that the new Tech Manual is as good as it can be considering the time and talent available. I believe it will improve with v4.1 and 4.2 etc. I am not in a position to argue the details with you. How you make the Tech Manual better is up to you but I would hazard a guess that moaning about it on Rec Fying, a forum studiously avoided by everyone at RAAus, is unlikely to make any difference at all.

 

Good luck with getting v4.1 to being more to your liking. By taking action you would believe you are doing all 10,000 members a favour.

 

 

[kasper]

Again you seem to miss the point (intentionall?) that a L1 can do 3 of the 4 inspections not only L2 or L4.Thanks for your frank views on the rest of it.

 

We can not all be experts on everything and you are arguing with the wrong person if you want to get into questions of aircraft design. My interests and experience is more suited to matters of good governance, finance and IT.

 

I have confidence that the new Tech Manual is as good as it can be considering the time and talent available. I believe it will improve with v4.1 and 4.2 etc. I am not in a position to argue the details with you. How you make the Tech Manual better is up to you but I would hazard a guess that moaning about it on Rec Fying, a forum studiously avoided by everyone at RAAus, is unlikely to make any difference at all.

 

Good luck with getting v4.1 to being more to your liking. By taking action you would believe you are doing all 10,000 members a favour.

Point me to the section in the Tech Manual where we can assess how and against what criteria the tech Manger will assess an L1 or approval or inspection ... without knowing what is to be assessed and what is valid/invalid how are the membership or the board of RAAus to understand what is required ... without this the L2/L4 is the all back

And nice to see the really great idea of saying oh well - i it does not work then just wait for the next version of the manual - trust us, she'll be right is not how the control documents should be managed

 

 

[storchy neil]

Don at ain't jasper allowed an opinion neil

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Reading the candidates statements for board positions didn't help me.

 

The two big issues for me are support for owner maintenance ( which I believe under threat) and airspace freeing up. What else could be important?

 

Only Eugene Reid seems to have addressed these items.

 

And Don, why do you think this site is avoided by some board members? I don't want to vote for such people.

 

So who do I vote for?

 

 

[storchy neil]

Bruce are you alluding to a perceived idea that this site is not monetered by all previous board members

 

I have feeling that some maybe telling porkies

 

Kasper an l2 l4 that was appointed RAAus when a complaint against person not delt with just another cover up fact so is who going monitor this situation the coroner to late Neil

 

 

[-Rod-]

I was until recently a current RAAus Board member and the immediate Past President of RAAus. I have been a member of the AUF/RAAus since its inception, and I have been teaching sport aviation pilots since 1972 (yes well before the AUF/RAAus was formed).

 

My efforts and the efforts of Eugene Reid as the longest serving member of the RAAus Board, Frank Marriot the newest serving member of the RAAus Board and a good number of others on the Board have been to develop and promote RAAus pilots best interests, aircraft owners rights and those of the industry as a whole. Unfortunately our efforts have not always been successful with the full RAAus Board deciding to approve some most unfortunate regulatory changes. Being reflective I feel preserving the 'freedom of flight' is becoming more an aspirational goal than a reality with a number of our current policies.

 

As an individual RAAus member you can effect a positive change by voting for the candidates that will look after both you and the sports best interest.

 

As a candidate for the new RAAus Ltd Board I am happy to put forward the following policies, and this is by no means a complete list. The formal RAAus election statements were restricted in how long they could be, we were prohibited from including certain information and we were require to detail pre nominated skill sets. This left little room to detail all views, policy positions, and past performance in the document.

 

I am happy to document some of my policy positions, it is by no means a complete list. I believe in and will work to achieve ...

 

The continuing right to build and maintain your own aircraft without excessive regulations, maintain the right to be able to complete your own aircraft maintenance without unnecessary restrictions, not support the introduction, either now or in the future, compulsory annual condition reports for all aircraft, not support the introduction of legally binding maintenance release type 'sign offs' every day you fly, and not implement punitive RAAus ramp checks.

 

We need to be active in obtaining easier access to both restricted and controlled airspace for RAAus pilots (VFR lanes, improved access times, change to levels and ease of obtaining clearances for appropriately trained RAAus pilots), our light sport aircraft policy needs to (and hopefully will) ensure change to allow a manufacturers MTOW to be used as the certification maximum weight, and not an arbitrary 600kg.

 

On Sport Pilot magazine and its distribution as a hard copy, I have detailed my policy recommendations in my election statement.

 

On insurance we need an industry wide pilot life insurance for all RAAus pilots (opt in - user pays). We need better liability protection insurance for RAAus flying schools (opt in, user pays). We need an industry wide cost effective 3rd party liability insurance cover for all RAAus L2 and above maintainers (paid for by maintainers) so that our ever diminishing level of maintainers are able to completed their work, in many cases unpaid, without the fear of being taken to court.

 

As a vision and a goal RAAus needs to move further towards a member support role, if we take this position many of the decisions on new regulations and new controls will be evaluated in a more favourable way. If we take the position that our primary function is as the regulator, in a CASA type fashion, we will continue to make poor decisions and introduce poor policies.

 

On finances, RAAus is running at a loss, and it has done so for many years. We are talking of hundreds of thousands of dollars lost, year after year. Our reserves, so hard won, are being spent at an unsustainable rate. Its simple, we must stop running at a loss, increase revenue and cut costs, its inevitable and as a policy it should be implemented now.

 

In picking suitable Board members I recommend you hunt down what each individual prospective Board members policies are, evaluate not only if they are capable to do the job, ask what will they be working for.

 

As I am no longer on the current RAAus Board I am free to respond on any policy matters. As a new member to this Forum I am contributing with some trepidation, I ask any posts in reply stick to what is needed going forwards. Fighting for good policies is a worthy endeavour, engaging in personal attack is not such an admirable goal. In saying this your feedback is welcomed!

 

I am standing for election, I ask for you favourable consideration when casting your vote.

 

Rodney Birrell

 

RAAus Board Member candidate

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Hi Rod,

 

Firstly, thank you for outlining your election policies. I hope others do the same here, as I have not made up my mind yet.

 

 

 

Forgive me for concentrating on finances, as that has been my forte. Can you explain why RAA has lost so much money? I know some was lost in lapsed registrations due to the failed audits, and continues to be lost with aircraft that didn't return to the register, but that is small change against what you suggest has evaporated. I have heard of "settlements" over actions by previous Boards, the expenditure on IT/modernisation should be offset by staff reductions, the change to Sport Pilot should be saving something. Where did it go? Can it be turned around?

 

 

 

I see you are requesting an increase in fees - everyone to receive a hard copy of Sport Pilot, at a compulsory $45/yr, increased insurance cover for pilots and L2's at additional cost to them. I note you support an increase in MTOW and support to other organisations. Will this bring more aircraft registration revenue, and will RAA be compensated by the other organisations for services rendered eg doing their admin, providing tech support?

 

 

 

Regards

 

Sue

 

 

[Admin]

Good questions there Sue

 

 

[storchy neil]

I stand to be corrected

 

had the raaus had balls to back certain person on this forum roughly 9 years ago the organization would not have been in the shit it is in

 

but raaus bloody mindedness to vilify and block his endeavour to modernize this organization to the IT age

 

its my opinion I'm sticking to it

 

I notice that rod has joined this forum is it off a concern to him now that this forum carries a lot of information that is both good and bad

 

sorry rod but you arnt getting my vote or any old board members reason starts nov 2008 when I informed raaus that an aircraft was not airworthy a bloody cover up by raaus neil

 

 

[planesmaker]

Hi Rod and welcome, thank you for setting out your policies here. I hope others will do the same.

 

 

[-Rod-]

Hi Rod,

Firstly, thank you for outlining your election policies. I hope others do the same here, as I have not made up my mind yet.

 

 

 

Forgive me for concentrating on finances, as that has been my forte. Can you explain why RAA has lost so much money? I know some was lost in lapsed registrations due to the failed audits, and continues to be lost with aircraft that didn't return to the register, but that is small change against what you suggest has evaporated. I have heard of "settlements" over actions by previous Boards, the expenditure on IT/modernisation should be offset by staff reductions, the change to Sport Pilot should be saving something. Where did it go? Can it be turned around?

 

 

 

I see you are requesting an increase in fees - everyone to receive a hard copy of Sport Pilot, at a compulsory $45/yr, increased insurance cover for pilots and L2's at additional cost to them. I note you support an increase in MTOW and support to other organisations. Will this bring more aircraft registration revenue, and will RAA be compensated by the other organisations for services rendered eg doing their admin, providing tech support?

 

 

 

Regards

 

Sue

Hello Sue,

 

On Finances, the biggest single outgoing was the IT/Website upgrade as a one off. It was a necessary expense. The ongoing costs are primarily wages, RAAus has reduced its administrative staff at the lower cost level as a result of IT efficiencies however it has employed more staff at a middle management level. We also have a notable budget allocation going forwards for marketing costs. The settlement of legal costs was significant however at this stage it is not an ongoing problem for RAAus. Magazine sales have been poor with members not taking up the forecast number of subscriptions and this has adversely effected our expected income. There are no 'bear traps' there for RAAus we are simply spending too much without sufficient income. On the income level we have a reduced membership base, I have no access to current numbers however from around 10,000 to a recent figure of an estimated 8,600. Unfortunately with reduced income we need to reduce expenditure. Yes we can run a balanced budget, it can be done.

 

Weight Increase, Yes, if we can gain an an increase in the maximum weight for our class of aircraft we will gain more members and our income will increase, a case of what is good of our members will be good for RAAus's bottom line. This matter is actively being actively pursued by RAAus.

 

Sport Pilot, I believe RAAus policy on making the hard cover version of Sport Pilot an op-in option, with a high fee to do so, was not a good policy. Many members have said they thought to move was sneaky, that they did not like the online version, that they would not read it online, and they would not pay the high fee for getting the printed version, something they received for "free" previously. My proposal is to be upfront with our members and include the distribution of the magazine (for members only) at cost. That is only charge for actual printing and postage costs, previously estimated to be around $45 per year. For those that have no wish to have the printed magazine they could 'opt-out' and save the $45 per year (approx). Even if the actual costs came to a higher $55 per year it would still be a good deal for everyone. I submit this would be a fairer way of distributing Sport Pilot magazine, more RAAus pilots would subscribe and those that would rather save the money could opt-out and continue to receive the electronic copy.

 

Insurance The insurance cover for pilots and maintainers it would not need to be compulsory, it could be an opt-in offer. Prices can be obtained for both options and presented to our members when the actual fee options are known. With our electronic communication the insurance options and the fees could easily be present to our members via an email survey - very little cost, with a very fast response - democracy in action!

 

Support to other Sport Aviation bodies, A mutually beneficial proposal, we have the professional skills in our office with a very capable and competent team including a CEO that performs at the highest level. We have the capability to provide administrative support and operational support to like minded bodies. We could offer our services at a cost that would be of value to other organisations yet profitable to RAAus, a classic win-win.

 

Cheers

 

Rod Birrell

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

8,600 members was a decision to only count flying members (pilots). The actual revenue membership is closer to 10,000. John Brandon (in his tutorials on this site Australian powered recreational aviation history ) has membership at 9,906 at 2 January 2013. The President (in his column p.7 Feb 2016 Sport Pilot) said 10,000 pilots (he probably meant Members). The number of pilots have been dropping, but non-flying has been growing. RAA seems to have a problem knowing how many members it has; viz the Annual Report debacles of 2009 (prepaids counted twice) & 2010 and 2011 (included resignations), 2012 (no figure), 2014/15 with figures that didn't make sense.

 

 

 

Increasing memberships by an additional $45/pa (from $215 to $260) will increase revenue by approx $430,000, but this will be wholly offset by the increased cost of production and delivery of Sport Pilot. Having an "op-out" may result in many doing so - just to save the $45, or because they don't read it now. I predict the cost per magazine will run at a loss and have to go up (again). I really don't have a solution to this, but it won't save the ship.

 

 

 

I note the "modernisation" project may have cost $158,673.65 (listed as intangible assets Dec 2015 financial statement). This is a one-off expense, but it is only half of the loss for that period. The biggest expenses are: Salaries $616k, Insurance $265 (about $200k is pilot insurance), Printing $164k (not including the magazine), General (travel, training, meetings) $152k which the report says will reduce. The biggest income is memberships and plane registrations $1Million. These figures are only for 6 months to Dec 2015.

 

 

 

June 2013 RAA had $1.71mil in cash reserves, now 2.5yrs later it is $0.97mil. Where has it gone? Where can you see savings or increased revenue that can bring the bottom line back to a healthy surplus? This is not just for you, Rod, but any and all of our candidates.

 

 

[Admin]

Interesting to note Sue is that I offered in a formal letter to the RAAus board to do the website for $1 which was not taken up on. It was $1 and not for free so it would be considered a commercial agreement which allowed them to call the shots but again they didn't accept it. A life in the industry and this site itself as evidence of my capability indicates very poor decision making by them as they rather have paid big bucks out of members funds for it instead. I really don't believe the board is professionally sound and as even seen recently they are managing not professionally but emotively through hearsay, personal opinions and individual agendas instead of professionally on behalf of the MEMBERS

 

 

[Geoff13]

You know how bad the old Tech Manual was and how out of date it was. Can you imagine how much work Darren and quite a few Board Members (not so much me) put into the rewrite? And then to just read all negatives about the new Tech Manual and proclaim everybody is now "screwed" may have pushed me into that intemperate post you reasonably took exception to.

Don this post really bothers me. I understand that many believe the old tech manual was outdated. I have only been a member for 2 years. In those 2 years I have seen 3 things that make me worry about the future of the organisation. There have been several things that I didn't agree with but the following three things that really bother me and your post highlights them.

 

1. We were told the old Ops Manual was outdated and unworkable. - So it was changed for a newer but unproved version that appeared to be rushed at the last moment.

 

2. We were told that the old constitution was outdated and unworkable. - So it was changed by a board that really only pushed the new one and did not give a balanced opinion., And then rushed action before it was even legally implemented.

 

3. now we are told the the Old tech manual is dated and unworkable and as such has been replaced by an obviously untested new tech manual.

 

Now I am not saying for a second the these three things did not need changing. What I am saying though is that the old ones have worked for many years. Just because something is old and outdated does not mean it should be change without due consultation.

 

I am aware that as a 2 year member I would not be part of the in crowd but I have seen very little consultation on any of the above.

 

My point is that we should not change anything because the old thing becomes dated as appear to have happened here.

 

We should only change things because a better option has become available.

 

IMHO we have failed in this regard in at least to of the three things above and possibly even three of them.

 

Sorry Don but the argument that the old one was stuffed does not work for me. What would work is look this one is so much better than the old one because of XYZ.

 

In addition you refer to the quantity of work done by many, and I can appreciate that, however quality of work is far more important to me than quantity.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

1. We were told the old Ops Manual was outdated and unworkable. - So it was changed for a newer but unproved version that appeared to be rushed at the last moment.

In January this year OPS sent a draft copy of the ops manual with amendments to CFIs for comment and revision. I think this is a good thing. Why a link was not provided for all members to read it, I don't know. What I have noticed is that even though we are legally obliged to operate in accordance with the ops manual I would say nine in ten RAAus pilots have never read it (it will never be a best seller).

 

I have not heard that anyone saw a draft copy of the new tech manual.

 

 

[Geoff13]

In January this year OPS sent a draft copy of the ops manual with amendments to CFIs for comment and revision. I think this is a good thing. Why a link was not provided for all members to read it, I don't know. What I have noticed is that even though we are legally obliged to operate in accordance with the ops manual I would say nine in ten RAAus pilots have never read it (it will never be a best seller).I have not heard that anyone saw a draft copy of the new tech manual.

I have certainly read both the old one and the new one. I find it incredulous that anyone would fly an RAAUS plane without having at least read the current ops manual. The requirements of your RAAUS Certificate require that you not only read it but understand it.

 

Sending it to CFI's is good but sending it to basic certificate holders would be better, we are the ones who need to be able to understand it as well.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yes I did read it when I first got my certificate but I haven't perused through it since, it is a probably similar to the average driver reading up on the road rules, we do it to get our licence and then go forward on that knowledge and try to do the right thing and the next time we read them (the road rules) is when our children are getting their learner permits and are telling us we are doing things that are illegal!

 

I haven't got kids that age yet but no doubt if they and I live long enough that is what will happen. I certainly doubt that the average driver/pilot reads through the rules and regs regularly.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Many questions asked on this forum are easily answered by quick reference to the ops manual and CAO 95.55 etc. Unfortunately the way the documents are written and presented does not make for easy reading or understanding.

 

 

[frank marriott]

We were told that the old constitution was outdated and unworkable. - So it was changed by a board that really only pushed the new one and did not give a balanced opinion., And then rushed action before it was even legally implemented

Geoff

 

The word "majority" should be included to be fair as it was not supported unaminously - but we are all sacked now so good luck with the new board whoever they may be (certainly not me).