Political style election

[David Isaac]

No, it's sitting there right now, available to be fixed, but if you don't fix it, the first you'll know of it will be when an issue arises, and CASA, or your opponent's lawyer (lawyers tend to do reasearch, as I found out in VCAT last week) points out the the Court that what you thought was your defence, has no status because the signatory was not an officer of the company, or a thousand other things that you think are of not consequence because youy just want to go flying.

HH (Tubz),

Exactly what is it that is "sitting there right now, available to be fixed"? And exactly what do you propose we do to "fix" it?

 

 

[turboplanner]

HH (Tubz),Exactly what is it that is "sitting there right now, available to be fixed"? And exactly what do you propose we do to "fix" it?

Kasper has just explained the basics; that's what's sitting there.

It is available to be fixed, provided the caretakers don't move forward to an election.

 

The best way to fix it is to get into compliance, then move to an election.

 

Then you fire them.

 

 

[Oscar]

Not good enough. You are hiding behind weasel words, Turbs, bring forward your explicit explanation of the situation. Less than this is simply trolling.

 

 

[coljones]

Indeed yes.From the public records of the ACT Government

 

The date of cessation of registration of association A02621 RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA was 8 August 2016

 

From the public records of ASIC

 

The date of commencement of registration of ACN 070 931 645 RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA LIMITED was 26 July 2016

 

Now I have to assume that the cessation date of 8 August was simply when ASIC confirmed to the ACT government that the registration handover was completed.

 

AND the constitution of RAAus Ltd only became effective and operational on registration with ASIC ...that was part of the proposal put before the membership and voted on ...

 

But based on any interpretation of these dates and which constitution applied calling for and closing nominations before ASIC registration occurred is something that needs to be explained - and explained clearly because on the face of it it is just not correct.

 

And add to that, even IF you have legal advice that you can apply the new constitution before it comes into effect AND retrospectively correct the timing issue WHY then is the election process as operating NOT even in compliance with the new constitution? and why is the chairman saying when challenged on this I know its not, it does not need to be because we are not yet registered so do not need to comply

You don't need the stamp of ASIC to operate. You only need to have it to be protected under the Corporations law. Until then you are in some other jurisdiction operation in a process approved by the members. When you start up a completely new company you can do whatever you like but you can't pretend things like limited liability til you are given that status by the government. The election process was a directive to RAA by its members and was carried through into the registration process of RAA LTD. I'm not sure that ASIC actually gives a damn. In most, except the most political and egregious, cases it is up to those aggrieved to fund their own actions against corporations (who, if they can, will continue bad behaviours right up to the high Court). In Australia we tend to have Courts of the deepest pockets.

 

 

[kasper]

OK - in response to post # 149

 

On the date the nominations were called the ONLY constitution that applied is that which was the ACT registered INC form and the ONLY elections that were permissible to be called under that constitution are the old style regional representation system.

 

On the date the nominations CLOSED the ONLY constitution that applied is that of the ACT Inc form with regional representation.

 

What we GOT was a call for nominations under the new constitution - the call specifically noted the section under which it was called - and that was proceduraly improper - the call under any section of the constitution can only be made when that section of the constitution is effective and per the resolution passed by the members of the RAA in May the entire constitution only became effective on registration with ASIC.

 

Putting the timing aside issues with actual governance

 

1. factually you are ignoring the rules - that in itself is bad governance

 

2. no complete written procedure for the election has been made available to members and I have asked for it and it does not exist - that is another example of bad governance

 

3. communications to members under the new constitution is materially different to the old constitution - no written notice to members of the calling for the election AS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW CONSTITUTION was made ... therefore the calling for nominations part of the process is again an example of bad governance

 

4. given that some people never heard about the call for nominations and/or were concerned that the process is not legitimate we cannot say if all people interested could or did put themselves forward - another example of bad governenace

 

5. when the chairman has these raised to the him as concerns BEFORE the close of nominations - at a time when RAAus members funds had not been spent on printing and distributing all the magazines etc - he refuses to even contemplate that members have not had a complete and compliant process - in fact he admits that it is not compliant but it will go ahead anyway - that in my opinion is horrendous governance

 

6. need I go on????

 

 

[Oscar]

Since I am not a member of RAA and therefore haven't received any papers etc., can you please tell me when Nominations CLOSED for the election?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not good enough. You are hiding behind weasel words, Turbs, bring forward your explicit explanation of the situation. Less than this is simply trolling.

Forget the stirring Oscar, Kasper's explained it well enough that you should be able to understand.

 

 

[Oscar]

Ok, Turbs, I did not expect you to provide anything cogent. Since (if RAA has 10K members), I expect that about 9,995 are not concerned with this 'issue', it actually doesn't matter.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ok, Turbs, I did not expect you to provide anything cogent. Since (if RAA has 10K members), I expect that about 9,995 are not concerned with this 'issue', it actually doesn't matter.

No, the issue is not a popularity issue; it isn't a subjective one; and so on. I thought you might understand that.

 

 

[DrZoos]

After being in a few sports that split over the years, I haven't yet seen one that came out the other side even remotely better in any way.

 

This is going to be interesting, but I do worry about its impact.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not aware of the internal workings of this emerging new group, and have already been critical of the poor standard of communication.

 

I'm also not aware of exactly what caused them to think they could do a better job.

 

However, memories are very short here, and I'm seeing no mention of the pilloring Myles Breitkruze received when he was given the job of setting up an SMS, and the sprays that ex-Board Membert Ed Herring received when he supported him.

 

Perhaps that was the start of it all.

 

 

[David Isaac]

....................However, memories are very short here, and I'm seeing no mention of the pilloring Myles Breitkruze received when he was given the job of setting up an SMS, and the sprays that ex-Board Membert Ed Herring received when he supported him.Perhaps that was the start of it all.

It was this appointment that was alleged as nepotistic and and failed to follow due process. It was also alleged the appointment was inappropriate because Myles had no experience in setting up SMSs.

In fairness to Ed at the time he was was acting out of the failure of RAAus to set up a SMS as required by the CASA agreement. His error was perhaps to have appointed Myles without a proper advertising and selection program. Ed was under considerable time constraints at the time because of what previous RAAus management had failed to do.

 

 

[Admin]

I also supported Ed in his frustration in getting things done and with CASA applying so much pressure and the board just so blaze about it all.

 

I can remember one board meeting when CASA released the risk profile on RAAus. Such an important thing to discuss at that board meeting but the meeting was cut short so the board members could go to Dick Smith's barbecue. I just shook my head

 

 

[billwoodmason]

I fail to understand why RAA has to spend it's money on an SMS and employ a safety officer. Surely this is the role of CASA. It is easy to understand why membership and registration costs keep rising when CASA up the ante on what it expects RAA to do on finite resources. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

Why should we pay for and perform their functions that they are handsomely funded to do. Have CASA got an SMS in place for GA and if so who pays?.

 

RAA management should be fighting these impositions on our funds and making CASA fund their own wish list.

 

The rhetoric coming from the CEO seems to be acquiescent to all that CASA ask for, he needs to be told that we are his major stakeholders and employers - not CASA. I'm majorly disappointed in his performance ever since the Jabiru vendetta began and now that they are trying (or being told to) to take over all categories of recreational aircraft. If you can't make a go with 8500 members you wil never be successful. They are trying to do too much with too little to appease CASA. Costs to RAA membership cannot keep rising to fund someone else's role - leave us alone !!.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I fail to understand why RAA has to spend it's money on an SMS and employ a safety officer. Surely this is the role of CASA. It is easy to understand why membership and registration costs keep rising when CASA up the ante on what it expects RAA to do on finite resources. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.Why should we pay for and perform their functions that they are handsomely funded to do. Have CASA got an SMS in place for GA and if so who pays?.

RAA management should be fighting these impositions on our funds and making CASA fund their own wish list.

 

The rhetoric coming from the CEO seems to be acquiescent to all that CASA ask for, he needs to be told that we are his major stakeholders and employers - not CASA. I'm majorly disappointed in his performance ever since the Jabiru vendetta began and now that they are trying (or being told to) to take over all categories of recreational aircraft. If you can't make a go with 8500 members you wil never be successful. They are trying to do too much with too little to appease CASA. Costs to RAA membership cannot keep rising to fund someone else's role - leave us alone !!.

RAA is a self administering organisation Bill; it is responsible for its own safety, and the big issue is why there wasn't an SMS in place for a start. In a lawsuit, the claimant's lawyers are going to ask what regime is in place to supervise the activities and ensure safe operations. Without an SMs you are left with your thumb in your mouth.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It was this appointment that was alleged as nepotistic and and failed to follow due process. It was also alleged the appointment was inappropriate because Myles had no experience in setting up SMSs.In fairness to Ed at the time he was was acting out of the failure of RAAus to set up a SMS as required by the CASA agreement. His error was perhaps to have appointed Myles without a proper advertising and selection program. Ed was under considerable time constraints at the time because of what previous RAAus management had failed to do.

There is a long thread on it somewhere but I was told Myles worked in the mining industry and had experience with SMS.

However, one thing we can all be sure on; if Myles had been appointed safety manager he wouldn't have sent a list of engine failures to CASA which included fuel exhaustions and flat tyres.

 

 

[ave8rr]

RAA is a self administering organisation Bill; it is responsible for its own safety, and the big issue is why there wasn't an SMS in place for a start. In a lawsuit, the claimant's lawyers are going to ask what regime is in place to supervise the activities and ensure safe operations. Without an SMs you are left with your thumb in your mouth.

Totally correct Turbs. All AOC holders need a SMS in place for their operation/s. Some on here know I managed a Certified aerodrome for a number of years and we were required to have a CASA approved SMS in place which was audited annually along with the aerodrome.

 

 

[storchy neil]

yes turbs raa when asked were it was don't need it was the reply oh shit yes we did neil

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Turbs, I don't argue there shouldn't be an SMS in place, I have issue with us having to pay for it. We are depleting our reserves keeping up with CASA's demands and constantly on our toes waiting for the next urgent issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile CASA conveniently side step any responsibility by making individual organisations accountable for producing their own version of an SMS.

 

RAA is a self administering organisation Bill; it is responsible for its own safety, and the big issue is why there wasn't an SMS in place for a start. In a lawsuit, the claimant's lawyers are going to ask what regime is in place to supervise the activities and ensure safe operations. Without an SMs you are left with your thumb in your mouth.

[turboplanner]

Turbs, I don't argue there shouldn't be an SMS in place, I have issue with us having to pay for it. We are depleting our reserves keeping up with CASA's demands and constantly on our toes waiting for the next urgent issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile CASA conveniently side step any responsibility by making individual organisations accountable for producing their own version of an SMS.

The SMS is RAA Ltd's demonstration of its duty of care umbrella. The primary battle will be between you and RAA Ltd vs the person you just hurt. RAA Ltd has to pay for its SMS the same as any other company. The government doesn't pay to develop the system or train the employees/participants.

 

In a company situation, a customer company may require, in the contract, that the supplier have an SMS in place and certain insurances before the contract is signed. I've signed quite a few. CASA sits in much the same place as the customer.

 

Having said that, the last time I looked at the RAA SMS it was a very simple document.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Turbs, I don't argue there shouldn't be an SMS in place, I have issue with us having to pay for it. We are depleting our reserves keeping up with CASA's demands and constantly on our toes waiting for the next urgent issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile CASA conveniently side step any responsibility by making individual organisations accountable for producing their own version of an SMS.

Bill,

Your assessment of the cost-shifting activities of CASA is pretty close to the mark. As you may know, RAAus has a one-sided Deed forced on it by CASA that includes an obligation for RAAus to have an SMS. The Deed includes a very nominal payment by CASA to RAAus. This is a matter of great concern to past and current Boards. You must remember who the 400kg gorilla is in this deal. It is stating the bleeding obvious that CASA has the legal power to do just about anything they fancy. For the Deed to be a fair and balanced contract the payment from CASA would be $millions not approx $100k.

 

The safety manager we have is outstanding and is doing a very good job. She acts as CEO in his absence. Compare her to Myles and we are into chalk and cheese territory.

 

One thing that may not be apparent is that at one stage CASA wanted each flying school/club to have its own SMS. That is now improved to be an over-arching SMS for all of RAAus.

 

Don

 

 

[coljones]

Turbs, I don't argue there shouldn't be an SMS in place, I have issue with us having to pay for it. We are depleting our reserves keeping up with CASA's demands and constantly on our toes waiting for the next urgent issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile CASA conveniently side step any responsibility by making individual organisations accountable for producing their own version of an SMS.

In the case of GA each AOC is responsible for their own SMS including all costs - not insignificant and hopefully saving more in lives and money by incident avoidance. Nobody really escapes from cost shifting by CASA but the flip side is that organisations and individuals now have to take safety seriously.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bill,Your assessment of the cost-shifting activities of CASA is pretty close to the mark. As you may know, RAAus has a one-sided Deed forced on it by CASA that includes an obligation for RAAus to have an SMS. The Deed includes a very nominal payment by CASA to RAAus. This is a matter of great concern to past and current Boards. You must remember who the 400kg gorilla is in this deal. It is stating the bleeding obvious that CASA has the legal power to do just about anything they fancy. For the Deed to be a fair and balanced contract the payment from CASA would be $millions not approx $100k.

The safety manager we have is outstanding and is doing a very good job. She acts as CEO in his absence. Compare her to Myles and we are into chalk and cheese territory.

 

One thing that may not be apparent is that at one stage CASA wanted each flying school/club to have its own SMS. That is now improved to be an over-arching SMS for all of RAAus.

 

Don

Interesting that you pitch a tale of the 400 kg gorilla, and the "one-sided Deed"; when you were a board member you just ignored the deed; so that it just so much hot air.

 

If the obligation is difficult for you to understand, just imagine if CASA was taken out of the picture; if the Federal Government just listened to the chorus of magpies who said CASA wasn't working, looked at the annual cost of running an operation with 1,000 bureaucrats, and decided the people of Australia would be better off if that money was spent on developing solar power.

 

Then you wouldn't have a gorilla on your shoulders; we would all, from Qantas down, be flying in accordance to the new Civil Aviation Act, and we would all be responsible for our own safety.

 

If we went to the government and said "What are the rules, who's going to pay for all this now?" they would simply say "You're in charge, work it out"

 

That's the situation with hundreds of thousands of corporations just like RAA Limited in Australia today.

 

There's no Big Gorilla running around the Bowen Basin telling mining companies they have to have an SMS; there's no Big Gorilla telling thousands of sporting associations they have to have an SMS.

 

Those Associations do it themselves, and then operate with a volunteer force.

 

I've been through every stage I've outlined here, with the exception of the example of the government dropping CASA; the equivalent of that happened in Victoria where the government set up the Transport Regulation Board which had total control of commercial vehicles and buses, and allowed certain types of vehicles to operate just like CASA does with RA; and the TRB expanded and changed the rules, just like CASA does, and extended that to specify territories where commercial vehicles could operate, just like CASA, and vehicles had to be built and maintained to TRB regulations, just like CASA. And one day the TRB was gone and their multi-story buildings are now units for the yuppies of Carlton.

 

So imagine if CASA was taken out of the picture; you would be in exactly the same position as all those other sporting bodies; but when the plaintiff slapped you with a $16 million claim, the only defence you'd have is "The safety manager we had was outstanding and was doing a very good job. She acted as CEO in his absence. When we compared her to Myles we were into chalk and cheese territory."

 

With bodies on the ground, that's not such a great defence.

 

 

[Keith Page]

There is a long thread on it somewhere but I was told Myles worked in the mining industry and had experience with SMS.However, one thing we can all be sure on; if Myles had been appointed safety manager he wouldn't have sent a list of engine failures to CASA which included fuel exhaustions and flat tyres.

Yes Turbo,

Somebody in the RAAus office sent all that information. You are correct fuel exhaustion was included.

 

KP

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs, why does the existence of CASA protect anyone from litigation? I can imagine that between the RAAus and its insurers, some sort of SMS would be in place anyway.