RAAus general meeting

[Keith Page]

As I said before jetr. The answer to the viewings, "Not all L2.3.4." Got to see not even the first draft of Tech. Manual let alone the final.

 

Taking the information Frank provided I do wonder who is running the organisation.

 

The other important point to consider, if the Tech. Manual is altered in any way it is to be represented to CASA as it is another document.

 

I do believe there is no intention of changing the Tech. Manual those comments, we will correct it, is only lip service to appease the critics.

 

KP

 

 

[planesmaker]

Stage inspections is definitely not a CASA requirement! It was added by tech manager I believe. Why?

 

 

[Keith Page]

I guess different people have differing views on what constitutes a crowd."None of them were really listened to." Really? Is that verifiable or an opinion. Keith, I'm not saying you are wrong -I am now very careful about appearing to criticise anyone these days . If you have some facts to back up your assertions than I'm sure we would all welcome the chance to see them. It might make it easier for members to make their own minds up as to what's true and whats conjecture. That would surely be a good thing yes?

If you are simply putting forward your opinions then there is no need to trouble you for verification.

 

p.s.I hope you don't feel threatened his post, or that I'm baiting you in any way, that is not my intention, I just expressing my opinion, and I'm sure you'd support Napoleon's dictum on opinions.

Hello gandalph,

Considering and regarding your post.. factor in what Frank has told us regarding Michael Linke ingoring the suggestions and advice and implementing regardless and jetr telling us only a select few saw the tech. manual before submission. Ummmmmmmm?

 

Regretfully I have say that RAAus is not a member's organisation.

 

While you are all pondering this, ever wondered why the desperate need for the promoting of only 5 board members, I smell a rat.

 

Just to help you get a clear understanding, Google the situation see what you find?

 

KP

 

 

[skeptic36]

Google the situation see what you find?KP

 

 

[David Isaac]

RAAus is and always will be a conflicted entity.

 

How can a single entity be a member representative organisation and a pseudo regulator in the same function.

 

This was foisted upon us; we had no choice. It is effectively a pandoras box.

 

Anyone who thinks that we can write a procedural or technical manual and not have it subject to the Regulator vitoe is seriously deluded. This however, does NOT mean that we cannot construct such manuals in a consensus process, to say otherwise is complete BS. So why don't we?

 

Just remember that whatever we write can be styled, edited, amended or vetoed by the Regulator, because the Civila Aviation Act and Regulations are hierarchically higher than any Standards or manuals we write.

 

This is exactly the case for building regulations. I am a member of several Australian Standards committees for fire safety measures and we write the building standards that are referenced in the National Construction Code (NCC) (BCA). The standards are written in a consensus process by all the stakeholders ..... BUT .... Where the Standards are referenced in the NCC, they form part of the regulatory structure and MUST BE STRUCTURED in accordance with the regulators guidelines. In this case the regulator is the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB). They can and do dictate policy to us, we form the technical requirements for safety (when they let us do our job), and they edit them to suit their policy.

 

Why do we think we are so special that we think we can run our little renegade bunch immune to the influence of the Regulator.

 

Get a bloody life guys ... Wake up and smell the roses.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If a professional process is used to produce a control document, and it complies with all external regulations which are applicable, then not only is CASA likely to simply rubber stamp it, but will breathe a sigh of relief that all is well in that particular self administering body.

 

That should be the aim.

 

 

[kasper]

never said everyone saw it Keith, but im sure everyone interested knew it was coming. Ill bet if you asked or contributed you could have been involvedYou cannot manage a regulatory process by concensus especially where the regulator is dictating the terms. There was always going to be unpopular changes partly because old manual was so poor.

Sections or chnges were no doubt discussed with Casa individually, negotating the least impact possible hopefully. THEN once complete whole document sent for ratification or approval. Pretty normal for complicated documents

 

Whats the point of lengthy member discussion if casa is telling them how its going to be.

 

Why would they ask someone like your opinion? Youre convincd theres some consiracy going on and unlikly to be helpful or positive towarda any changes

I wish I could split this thread to address Tech Manual separately.

My issues with the tech manual are based on principle because we knew it was coming BUT we had no inkling that they were going to fundamentally alter the basis of regulation:

 

1. imposing 4 staged inspections on home builts ... including 95.10s

 

2. making approval of any mod a requirement for flight on all home builts - including 9510s

 

These alone would have seen red flags raised - have you asked an L2 how happy they will be in singing off anything around all of this?

 

 

[DWF]

What is the problem with consulting the users of our manuals and constitution - we, the members!

 

CASA and the FAA, etc. have a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) process whereby a rule or document is proposed and public comment is invited, feedback on comments is provided and often the document is amended as a result of user comment/feedback before the final rule is made/document is published/adopted.

 

This would defuse a lot of discontent and provide those subject to the new/amended rules with an opportunity to air their views.

 

It may also allow "unintended consequences" to be pointed out before it is too late.

 

Also it provides the authors with an opportunity to better explain or word the document to improve user understanding. One person or a small group writing a document will know what they mean but not have written clearly enough to convey the intent to the outside reader.

 

I would like to see the requirement for a NPRM type process be included in our constitution or at least a Board policy document.

 

DWF

 

 

[kasper]

I thought that the reason for changing rAAus to a limited company was that it would come under ASIC and there would be no chance of any hanky panky. Now if the election was un constitutional ASIC should be advised and then they should do something about it. If those who are forever whingeing say that ASIC won't do anything, then I say we can assume that it is not considered serious and just get on with it.I have my problems with the current situation, but I am willing to see if the new board perform. At the moment looking at the RAAus site I find it hard to believe that RAAus is performing as it should, but I am willing to give some time.

I did inform ASIC of this unconstitutional action on the part of the initial directors .... but guess what - their response is that whilst it was clearly not in accord with the constitution it was up to the members to take action within the general meeting!

So there you go dear members - we moved from ACT incorporation because the ACT regulator was not deemed by management to be unresponsive to breach of requirements of the association and we have moved to ASIC who are exactly the same in terms of responsivniess - they accept that its clearly wrong but its up to the members in the AGM to enforce the constitution (and we know how apathetic most of our members are - thy just want to fly) or an indvidual/group of members can seek court action to prevent actions that are not within the constitutions.

 

So functionally we went through the entire expense of the changinf from ACT to ASIC on the basis of a demonstrably false premise of better oversight from ASIC ... wonder how much we spent on all of the legals and applications to make the unnecessary move?

 

So I am not willing to spend a great chunk of my cash to go to court to force the directors to abide by the consitution ... thats why I am putting forward the resolutions

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I just hate how we have become so over-regulated that our costs are rising all the time to pay for parasites.

 

General Aviation has been over-regulated into a shadow of what it would be without regulation. Buildings are going the same way, you need to add 20% to the cost to pay for various parasites who have the power to bankrupt you if you don't pay the extortion.

 

I never met any of the old board, but I have sympathy for them not abasing themselves before CASA. Alas, they were wrong to underestimate just how bad regulation has become.

 

I have a dream.... A state where officials are sacked for treating taxpayers, ratepayers and especially employers with less than helpful courtesy. The first state to do this will turn its fortunes around.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Bruce

 

Don't get confused with over regulation from CASA when some of the changes in the manuals come from "internal" NOT imposed upon us.

 

We have a problem IMO with what is being imposed by a section of RAA (NOT CASA) - Maybe sweetheart deals under the counter by some who are TOO close to particular individuals for a personal gain but that is what is being supported by members voting so the ultimate looser is RAA and its members - My belief is members need to give serious consideration to what direction they want RAA as an organisation to go.

 

My personal opinion is worth nothing, but members should look closely and sort the wheat from the chaff and decide what they want RAA to represent over the next few years.

 

Serious consideration is required, including pilots not reading individual opinions on this site, and they can form their own opinions - many I speak to are amazed when updated with the current mini CASA style.

 

 

[octave]

many I speak to are amazed when updated with the current mini CASA style.

Sorry if I am a bt thick but what do you mean by current mini CASA style?

 

 

[octave]

BruceDon't get confused with over regulation from CASA when some of the changes in the manuals come from "internal" NOT imposed upon us.

We have a problem IMO with what is being imposed by a section of RAA (NOT CASA) - Maybe sweetheart deals under the counter by some who are TOO close to particular individuals for a personal gain but that is what is being supported by members voting so the ultimate looser is RAA and its members - My belief is members need to give serious consideration to what direction they want RAA as an organisation to go.

 

My personal opinion is worth nothing, but members should look closely and sort the wheat from the chaff and decide what they want RAA to represent over the next few years.

 

Serious consideration is required, including pilots not reading individual opinions on this site, and they can form their own opinions - many I speak to are amazed when updated with the current mini CASA style.

Frank you gave my post a funny, but honestly I don't know what that last sentence means "many I speak to are amazed when updated with the current mini CASA style.." I honestly do not know what that means and I would really like to. I am not trying to be any kind of smart**** I really don't get it, "update me" and I might be "amazed" too

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

After the last summer wheatland fire in SA, these farmers were about to demolish a burned out building and put the rubble in a hollow on their farm. They were told by state government "environmental" inspectors that they could not do this without getting big fines.

 

Well it turned out that the inspectors were just bullies and wrong in law. But I bet they haven't been sacked, so the SA government is an accomplice to an extortion attempt. This is the opposite behavior to what I would enforce.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Sorry if I am a bt thick but what do you mean by current mini CASA style?

The last thing I want is to be likened to a Uni. tutor,sorry no short cuts to gaining the knowledge.

The ideal process is get your own interpretation of:-

 

*Have a good understanding of Part 149 because there is our new regulation base.

 

*CASA requirements covering our form of aviation include the different classes.

 

*The Tech. Manual. (New)

 

*The Opp. Manual. (New)

 

*The construction.

 

By reading and having a clear understanding you will be avoiding the interpretations from the bush lawyers and those pushing their own agenda.. You now will have octaves interpretation.

 

KP

 

 

[octave]

By reading and having a clear understanding you will be avoiding the interpretations from the bush lawyers and those pushing their own agenda.. You now will have octaves interpretation.

My interpretation??? um I have only just started reading the tech manual.I literally don't yet have an interpretation. Any guidance you can offer would honestly be appreciated. What I would really like to do is compare the RAAus tech manual with the proposed ELAAA tech manual. That way I can decide which way I will ultimately go.

 

 

[bull]

I guess different people have differing views on what constitutes a crowd."None of them were really listened to." Really? Is that verifiable or an opinion. Keith, I'm not saying you are wrong -I am now very careful about appearing to criticise anyone these days . If you have some facts to back up your assertions than I'm sure we would all welcome the chance to see them. It might make it easier for members to make their own minds up as to what's true and whats conjecture. That would surely be a good thing yes?

If you are simply putting forward your opinions then there is no need to trouble you for verification.

 

p.s.I hope you don't feel threatened his post, or that I'm baiting you in any way, that is not my intention, I just expressing my opinion, and I'm sure you'd support Napoleon's dictum on opinions.

The end result for RAA will be how many members are left if there is another option ah Gandy

 

 

[Keith Page]

My interpretation??? um I have only just started reading the tech manual.I literally don't yet have an interpretation. Any guidance you can offer would honestly be appreciated. What I would really like to do is compare the RAAus tech manual with the proposed ELAAA tech manual. That way I can decide which way I will ultimately go.

The RAAus Opp. Manual is monster a lot of the content is simply repeated, not wanting to sound disrespectful to me it looks like the document had to be a certain length and that what was done, well say a third could be cut out. Then it would still say the same thing.

ELAAA.:- Consider the Opp manual as well not just the Tech manual. All the information will be out for all to see, read and understand.

 

KP.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Octave, rather then nitpick everyone else's comments, why not read the document and make an original comment.

 

Clearly ELAA has not open for business at this stage.

 

 

[gandalph]

The end result for RAA will be how many members are left if there is another option ah Gandy

Yep

 

 

[turboplanner]

Simple; if they're not set up yet, there are no members to betray.

 

Instead, from the launch you will have a finished document to review. If you like it you can join.

 

As they get down the track with a member base they would be nuts not to consult the members.

 

 

[Riley]

Frank you gave my post a funny, but honestly I don't know what that last sentence means "many I speak to are amazed when updated with the current mini CASA style.." I honestly do not know what that means and I would really like to. I am not trying to be any kind of smart**** I really don't get it, "update me" and I might be "amazed" too

For just one blatant example of 'mini Casa' how about the unecessary and pointless revison to the Tech Manual (by our own Tech Dept) which requires progressive inspections on homebuilts to be signed off by L1s and above has to be a favour-currying CASA bum-kissing exercise, "look at how good we are at doing YOUR job Mr CASA"! I agree with Frank. we're being two-bitted into perilous existance territory. I didn't like Reid, I surely despaired of Runciman and now methinks I'll be ready to hang up my headset before the current Board steers the ship onto the rocks. Can somebody assure me I've got it wrong?

 

 

[gandalph]

Considering and regarding your post.. factor in what Frank has told us regarding Michael Linke ingoring the suggestions and advice and implementing regardless

Thanks Keith, I have been considering what Frank posted and it causes me some concern. There is probably the guts of a very sound question to be asked at the next General Meeting. I wont be able to get there but I hope, as previously the meetings, are video'd and made available.

 

Regretfully I have say that RAAus is not a member's organisation.

I'm not going to comment other than to say that I don't share your opinion.

While you are all pondering this, ever wondered why the desperate need for the promoting of only 5 board members, I smell a rat.

I have and I don't have a problem with the number of Board members. My opinion is that the change in the number of Board members was a good one, We might have to agree to differ on that. I don't know about "desperate need" those are your words not mine, & as for rats.... I have a touch of hay fever so my nose is not all that responsive.

 

 

Just to help you get a clear understanding, Google the situation see what you find?

I think I've got that pretty well nailed Keith, but I still think Skeptic's post was pretty funny.

[Keith Page]

Hello Gandalph,I have to agree with you, 5 board members is the better number however in this situation I will go with the 7 goes back to Frank's and Rod's posts. It is good that they broke rank and told us the truth. With what I have gleaned from those two and how I see the desperate need for the 5, one only needs 3 to get the voting in their favour as I have read and collected the other snippets of info we are to get some more radicle change of direction. Poor old octave is out wading through the Tech. Manual when he gets that sorted he will understand what a monster that is, RAAus is only to follow the regulations not add their own monsters. If RAAus goes mini GA so where is the benefit of recreational and experimental aviation hence then it will be cost and time prohibitive. Just look what kasper has gone throug to register his machine wonder who has the ego can't good sense have prevailed? I might as well all go fishing.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

For just one blatant example of 'mini Casa' how about the unecessary and pointless revison to the Tech Manual (by our own Tech Dept) which requires progressive inspections on homebuilts to be signed off by L1s and above has to be a favour-currying CASA bum-kissing exercise, "look at how good we are at doing YOUR job Mr CASA"! I agree with Frank. we're being two-bitted into perilous existance territory. I didn't like Reid, I surely despaired of Runciman and now methinks I'll be ready to hang up my headset before the current Board steers the ship onto the rocks. Can somebody assure me I've got it wrong?

Riley you have nailed it. Only thing missing, put the advisors in the ship as well, them I will give you 98% Which is an honours graduation.

KP