Political style election

[FlyingVizsla]

Got ours too. Now to decide .....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

For goodness sake Phil your are assertion that they have "chosen not to answer anymore questions" requires substantiation.

none of the candidates seem to have any policies

 

• Trevor’s particular strengths relate to the Operations and Technical areas of RAAus. As an L3, Trevor is a strong advocate for robust aircraft engineering and safety disciplines.
   
   
  
• Andrew is keen to help RAAus evolve into a stronger, more mature organization. He will strive to balance the needs of stakeholders with the organization’s strategy, to ensure that RAAus delivers results and value to its members.
   
   
  
• Tony will continue to advocate energetically for RAAus to recognize, protect and enhance benefits to, and engagement with, members.
   
   
  
• A key area of focus for Luke will be to promote safe and affordable access to flying for members. The high cost of flying, coupled with the uncertain state of the economy, means that attracting and retaining members will be a significant challenge for RAAus over the next 3-5 years.
   
   
  
• He intends to focus on maintaining professional and prudential standards while responding to changing market conditions. He will strive to ensure that RAAus is able to fulfil its functions properly, effectively and efficiently, and that the organization maintains its relevance nationally.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan, previous "good" board has delivered over the last few years

 

MARAP: What was the cost of developing and implementing it? Do we know the number of aircraft returned to the air? Can't be many

 

New Tech Manual: What is the case for inspections? Has the board considered the cost of the inspections?

 

New constitution: What was the cost of producing, my understanding is the board approved the cost of getting legal advice on the validity of the constitution? But some how it gets delivered full of errors, we have no timeline to implement any amendments.

 

I suspect you are just trolling, perhaps fun you, but it does detract from the usefulness of this forum.

Your entitled to your opinion but you sound like you are just making lazy accusations

 

 

[fly_tornado]

One thing I will say about the new CEO, he can see an opportunity.

 

Instead of the election costing 8500 prepaid envelopes he's lumped 8500 copies of sport pilot onto an unwilling public.

 

So the election expenses instead of being in the $16,000 range are now well over $85,000. I'm pretty sure he will move the cost of producing this edition of sport pilot from the magazine's expense account over to the cost of election.

 

The upside is the advertisers are getting an extra 6000 pairs of eyes for free and the sport pilot circulation gets the equivalent of 3 extra month of publications.

 

And people wonder why the RAA's contingency fund has disappeared.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Rod B's estimate of "at cost" magazine was $45/yr = $3.75ea. 10,000 voting members (remember, they only count Pilots when RAA quotes Member numbers of 8,600), less those already subscribing (1,000?) = $3.75 x 9,000 = $33,750. Paying the Reply Paid on 1,000 returned = $1,000. All up approx $35k, off set by several new subscriptions from people who suddenly realised what they had been missing..... The alternative was print 22 pages and post to everyone $30k?.

 

 

 

Contingency fund disappeared in several actions against RAA for fatalities, grounding of aircraft etc, plus a number of other black holes, but also some remedial work on the IT & management systems.

 

 

[Yenn]

Got my magazine yesterday. After I had downloaded all the info from the candidates. Some of the info. available on line is not in the magazine.

 

So far I have got 3 definite to vote for. The problem is that a lot of airy fairy feel good stuff is put forward and we all want that, so it is irrelevant mentioning it really. One candidate seems to be a proffessional director, another seems not to trust the management of RAAus including the existing board. Eugene is a big question, from what I know he is a passionate aviator, but neve seems to perform as a director. Maybe I am wrong there, he has certainly been involved for a long time.

 

 

[coljones]

Rod B's estimate of "at cost" magazine was $45/yr = $3.75ea. 10,000 voting members (remember, they only count Pilots when RAA quotes Member numbers of 8,600), less those already subscribing (1,000?) = $3.75 x 9,000 = $33,750. Paying the Reply Paid on 1,000 returned = $1,000. All up approx $35k, off set by several new subscriptions from people who suddenly realised what they had been missing..... The alternative was print 22 pages and post to everyone $30k?. 

 

Contingency fund disappeared in several actions against RAA for fatalities, grounding of aircraft etc, plus a number of other black holes, but also some remedial work on the IT & management systems.

The bowerbird fund got depleted due to board and CEO stupidity. The legals would have been forseen and provided for, the action by CASA and the grounding of planes and the ramshackle nature of the records SHOULD have been forseen, but were and ignored or weren't. Being vigilant is commendable, being a bowerbird isn't.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The RAA already runs a regular email system so they would only need to mail out candidate info to those that don't have email? Could be a few hundred in a worse case scenario

 

 

[octave]

none of the candidates seem to have any policies

What you actually said earlier was

 

surely they chose not to answer any more questions because it hinders their attempt to attain a position on the board.

I am yet to be convinced that they or any candidate has refused to "answer any more questions" without supporting evidence this is just an empty assertion unless you have directly asked a question an not received an answer. Do you apply these assertions all candidates or just the 5?

 

Thanks for posting one sentence from each of these 5 candidate statements but I have already read the statements from every candidate.

 

As for your questions

 

MARAP: What was the cost of developing and implementing it? Do we know the number of aircraft returned to the air? Can't be manyNew Tech Manual: What is the case for inspections? Has the board considered the cost of the inspections?

New constitution: What was the cost of producing, my understanding is the board approved the cost of getting legal advice on the validity of the constitution? But somehow it gets delivered full of errors, we have no timeline to implement any amendments.

You seemed to be a little confused about the appropriate people to ask these questions to. These are perfectly fair questions of a current board member who presumably has access to the information required to accurately answer these questions but as far as I know, being a candidate does not entail a thorough briefing about the current situation. To put it more simply, if you or I had thrown our hats into the ring and stood for election by what process would we have the information required to accurately to answer these questions? Do you think that declaring ones candidacy entails a briefing or even access that is greater than that provided to any other member. I have absolutely no problem with you asking these questions but if you truly want answers you need to direct these questions to those in a position to actually provide accurate answers.

 

In terms of referring to your posts as trollish, I would rather not have used that term in retrospect because I loathe name calling so I withdraw that BUT let me explain why I have a problem with your posts.

 

You make plenty of assertions about people's character without offering any evidence, just because you think someone is a liar or corrupt it doesn't automatically make it true. You seem to think that you are able to pronounce on the motives of some people who are standing for the board. We would all like to think that we can analyse people we have not met or had any contact with but without evidence it is nothing more than your angry thoughts.

 

To be clear I have no problem whatsoever with members who don't like the new RAAus structure or any particular board member past present or future I just wish that our debate could be civilized, rational and intelligent.

 

I would urge all members to read all available information and contact candidates if necessary and to vote for whoever you think will do the best job.

 

 

[JEM]

One thing that occurs to me is: Will the highly qualified legal and engineering oriented professional applicants applying for these 5 positions have sufficient time available to put aside their "day jobs" and travel interstate to attend RA meetings and to absorb the aviation related issues they will be expected to deliberate on?

 

 

[Oscar]

A very cogent question - but surely one that applies to ALL candidates?

 

 

[coljones]

One thing that occurs to me is: Will the highly qualified legal and engineering oriented professional applicants applying for these 5 positions have sufficient time available to put aside their "day jobs" and travel interstate to attend RA meetings and to absorb the aviation related issues they will be expected to deliberate on?

Sorry but "Engineers make it happen". Are you suggesting that only the unemployable should be elected (not that I see any of those among the candidates).

 

 

[JEM]

No Col, I am not suggesting that. I am merely pointing out that quite a few of the applicants already have, as they describe, high end jobs which I think will already take up a lot of their time.

 

Regards

 

 

[coljones]

No Col, I am not suggesting that. I am merely pointing out that quite a few of the applicants already have, as they describe, high end jobs which I think will already take up a lot of their time.Regards

We should be gratified that all have offered their time, energy and skills to do the job. Being high end individuals, I am sure that they know how to meter their time and capabilities to their various jobs. That is generally why they achieve high end jobs. I think we should choose high end people for the board rather than duds with time on their hands.

 

 

[Admin]

I have just about had enough of the mismanagement going on...Monck and Linke just have to go before RAAus is broke and a shambles leaving ASIC to step in. I am also now told that because we are called "Members" in the new company setup we are more open to be liable as individuals if RAAus is badly sued...just told this but a legal professional would be able to confirm or not...they just have to go to save our beloved Association

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Liable up to the set amount which I believe is $1?

 

 

[Yenn]

I also wondereed about the candidates being busy people already, would they expect to be remunerated. I don't have a high opinion of company directors, brought about by years ofbeing a shareholder and seeing the vast amounts they award themselves. I cannot see being a board member of RAAus being anything like running a company like BHP or Santos, so there should be only a minor expense incurred.

 

Some of the candidates have stresed their legal, financial and risk management experience, but I cannot see that the job will need all that expertise. It will be more a job of setting out the future path of RAAus and keeping a watch on the workings of the paid staff or rather the CEO and his control of the day to day running of RAAus.

 

I don't think we need more than one board member with proffessional legal background, or accountancy. What we really need is for all members to be sensible, forward looking and pro recreational aviation.

 

Having said that I am still having trouble working out who to vote for.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Liable up to the set amount which I believe is $1?

LOL good luck.

 

 

[frank marriott]

My ONLY interest in this is that RAA is run in a effective way for members. I have NO interest in egos of a few who believe they have such superior knowledge that their way is the only way and will not consider other opinions.

 

I am concerned at the current approach, particularly in relation to unsustainable spending - just look at the last couple of years AND the current predicted LOSS as presented at the last general meeting. (Yes I have read the excuses about the failed audits etc so no need to go down that line again - that is purely management issues)

 

The current approach is overtly supported by 4 or 5 on this site (which I have no problem with) but interestingly enough I have yet to hear from ONE person, face to face, who are in agreement with the current push.

 

Just standby and watch your membership/registration fees (and thereby hire rates for non owners) which is the only way to sustaine the current expenditure. Paid advertising to gain new members to make up the shortfall is fanciful.

 

Equally interesting is to see the comment from an outspeken supporter, and I quote " (hmm! Those pesky Qlanders could dominate)" Well that's what you open it up to with groups/cliques/alliances being able to be formed - not ideal IMO - with the we know best, if you don't like it leave approach.

 

Hang on, wasn't location not considered a factor?

 

 

[SDQDI]

You fellas who are worried about busy people having time, have you not heard the saying "if you want something done get a busy person to do it" ?

 

From my experience dealing with people in general, busy people seem to have a way of making sure things are done whereas those with time on their hands can often be found wanting.

 

Yes that is a broad generalisation and of course there are exceptions but just wanted to point out the flips side

 

 

[facthunter]

What I'm worried about is spare time and not very experienced pilots and NON pilots planning the direction of a predominately FLYING PEOPLE organisation, like us, mapping out OUR future. The only people in an airline who know what is really going on at the "sharp" end of flight Operations is the PILOTS. They collectively know whether something is a good idea or not. Similarly with this show. If you don't use THAT experience you will keep making operational mistakes and not learn anything from the past. Theres a real chance this show will lose it's essential character, and become another ponderous beurocracy, an extension of the CASA. where what you say is not heeded.. and you are BULLIED all the time, if you stir the pot. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

The problem with "high-end people" is that they might have lots of money and therefore see no reason why people should complain about big cost hikes, for example if professional maintenance is mandated on "safety" grounds.

 

Gliding was once the cheapest form of aviation. In numbers, it far surpassed ultralight aviation. It's not the cheapest now, and the numbers in RAAus compared to gliding reflect the change. RAAus has many more members these days. As an example of the change, I bought a kit Jabiru in 1998 for less than the sales tax on a new glider.

 

I think it to be very important to keep the costs down, and this includes CASA compliance costs as well as maintenance costs, if we are going to attract enough new people in to replace us old guys when the time comes. And it means supporting Australian manufacturing, which seems to me to generally offer much more affordable aircraft and engines, not to mention the pride in having something designed and built here.

 

Now most of the candidates probably agree with these ideas, but they may not and I don't want to vote for anyone who thinks the opposite way.

 

 

[Admin]

and you are BULLIED all the time, if you stir the pot.

I know the feeling Nev and even stated to me in correspondence from the now CEO Linke. If he was managing this site and had his own way every user would have to use their real name so he can persecute them...as he stated "I won't consider anything that a member says whilst hiding behind a pseudonym" and "I wont read any forum" yet at the last meeting arrogantly said he had bypassed the security here and has 2 logins...either lies or complete lack of respect for process, not a trait I would want in the CEO of our Association in my opinion...Runciman and Tizzard all over again.

And while I am at it, RAAus is getting legal advice from a person that represented a member against RAAus...I would have thought that is a conflict of interest and RAAus should know this

 

Also that info I was given regarding us being termed as "Members" making us more individually liable should large cases come up in sueing RAAus, I can't recall what we should have been termed as but I think it started with "A"...perhaps a legal eagle can advise. Incidentally there are couple of large cases supposedly coming up against RAAus that I have been told about

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes .. I've seem examples of quite well off committee club people just keeping on saying, "it's only a few extra dollars" and piling on costs. In aviation the common retort is "You own a plane. You MUST have money". McCormick couldn't get his mind around the type of aviation AUF/ RAAus were doing. Using materials not certified etc. That's when the big rot set in. Nev

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Talking about fee increases - Motion passed May 2015 "CEO review fees annually ... CPI increases & .. costs .. with a view to fees being adjusted on 1 July each year." Another motion, same date "For the next three years commencing 1 July 2015 aircraft registration or renewal will be increased by double the CPI and rounded up the nearest 5 dollars." (page 17)

 

 

 

To read the RAA resolutions go to the RAA members portal, Governance, The Board, Resolutions pdf.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Either McCormick was ex-airforce or else he thought like them... unlimited money, unlimited time and an extreme need to obey authority.