RAAus AGM member resolution - request for proxy

[frank marriott]

Aldo

 

Your views on consultative management in member based organisations differ to such an extent with mine that there is no point discussing, just accept we are on different sides of the line.

 

 

[robinsm]

It seems to me that RAA Aus is rapidly turning into a bloated semi CASA style organisation that will surely make all of the reasons it was started (freedom to allow the average person access to affordable flight, simplification of rules to allow people to build and operate their own aircraft, at their own risk with basic safety controls) a thing of the past. I can see it being over regulated and aimed at the money end of the market with a CASA mentallity and a big brother bent. Maybe akin to another overregulated GA style enterprise. Another case of shortsightedness removing a lot of personal freedoms and trying to remove personal responsibility from the equation. Sorry ALDO but I think you have missed the point about why the organisation was started in the first place.

 

 

[Aldo]

Sorry ALDO but I think you have missed the point about why the organisation was started in the first place.

Robinsm

 

I do understand why the organisation was started and I agree with that but with all things that grow the direction changes to suit the majority. I don't imagine that 30-40 years ago the people that started the AUF thought that they could have 10,000 members with aircraft that range in speed from 35 kts to 180 kts with ideas that they would be able to possibly fly in CTA, when initially you were not allowed to fly above 300 feet or cross a main road I don't think anyone wants to go back to that type of regulation and essentially be contained to over your own property if you have enough money (or have a friend that does) to purchase a property large enough to fly over. Now you can fly anywhere in the country providing you remain OCTA and below 10,000 feet in any of the aircraft that we have at our disposal, I think that is pretty special.

 

You never know we may be able to have it all, yes there will be a cost attached to having it all but that goes with everything. If managed correctly I would imagine the costs would be on a sliding scale depending on which end of the spectrum you are at.

 

Aldo

 

 

[kasper]

Update on letter from RAAus - I have just checked the PO box and nothing has been received. As Monday is a public holiday the earliest I will get the letter is Tuesday. When I have it I will post it here.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

So you emailed your resolutions in but are unable to receive electronic notices from RA-AUS?

 

 

[2tonne]

Warnings about RSPCA ignored, say staffAnd

Fair Work Commission told of alleged bullying by former RSPCA chief Michael Linke

I wouldn't read much into that. The one time I had to performance manage a useless employee with a terrible attitude and a massive sense of entitlement, guess what? I had an allegation of bullying and an application for a restraint made against me at Fair Work Commission. If you manage people, this stuff will almost inevitably happen.

 

 

[kasper]

So you emailed your resolutions in but are unable to receive electronic notices from RA-AUS?

Yep. The Constitution is a mess on communications paths and I have been highlighting the issues for more than a year in the various draft Constitutions that eventually ended up in the passed document - and since changeover to the new Constitution became effective in July RAAus management have been stuck with paper comms to me ... not because I want them BUT it reminds them every time they interact with me that they said that issues with the Constitution will be addressed as time goes by - I am looking forward to the first set of changes to the Constitution to address issues that were raised more than 1 year ago and were simply ignored.

So yes, I communicate inward to RAAus by email and everything from RAAus outward to me that has anything to do with the Constitution or draws its power from the Constitution has to be sent in the post. And of course everything that is drafted by RAAus in the member charters etc that reference electronic forms of comms are actually improper under the Constitution and ineffective as they relate to me.

 

See there are LOTS of downstream problems that are sourced in poor drafting in the current Constitution.

 

 

[bull]

PlaneyI agree the constitution must mean something and realistically you must abide by it, I'm sure RAA have had sufficient legal advice on how to set up the structure and get the organisation moving along to a workable operation and yes it all takes time but the constant chirping from the sidelines from people who don't want the job of implementing the change (or just didn't want change in the first place) doesn't help.

 

Any time you change from one structure to another and try to keep the business operating at the same time there are bound to be some things missed or not done to the letter of the law but it is not the end of the world.

 

Frank

 

The consultative approach works with smaller organisations but once you get over a certain size it just doesn't work because of all the differing opinions and positions that people take, you never achieve anything. In both large and small organisations you are never going to please all the members/shareholders all of the time in fact you will be lucky to please some of them some of the time.

 

If you just look at the recent change of structure of the organisation there are a number of members/shareholders not happy with the change but the majority of the members/shareholders who voted chose this direction.

 

Now that the structure of the organisation has been determined it is time to let the directors determine the direction of the organisation, the administrative team CEO etc to implement that direction and the rest of us to go and enjoy our flying.

 

If shareholders are not happy with that direction at the next elections they will have a choice to vote for someone else.

 

Anyone who thinks CASA will allow another new organisation to run its own little show for the benefit of a few types is dreaming.

 

I think the direction that will happen in the medium term will be that RAA will be pushed to take over all non-commercial GA below 5700kg so we best be a robust organisation.

 

Aldo

And that's the problem Aldo,,,,RAA was formed on the back bone of the AUF as in ultralights and there are a lot of members who are still very happy flying ultralights and not needing 5700kg mtow or access to airspace etc etc etc As raa is evolving like the way you are saying , It is time for CASA to recognise that and they will hopefully allow another organisation to manage the lighter side of aviation as raa was originaly built for ,but has now mutated into quasi GA

 

 

[bull]

And that's the problem Aldo,,,,RAA was formed on the back bone of the AUF as in ultralights and there are a lot of members who are still very happy flying ultralights and not needing 5700kg mtow or access to airspace etc etc etc As raa is evolving like the way you are saying , It is time for CASA to recognise that and they will hopefully allow another organisation to manage the lighter side of aviation ie ÚLTRALIGHTS ,as raa was originaly built for ,but has now mutated into quasi GA

The four stage inspections of 95.10 aircraft being built is a perfect example,as 95,10 was originaly formed to allow a person to design build and FLY an aircraft that was Affordable to build and fly .Remember when safe once stood for Safe Affordable Flying for Everyone ,well as Raa has mutated into a quasi Ga flying club by being safe Accessable flying for everyone ie; Accessable for those that can no longer, for whatever reasons , Access GA.......And before anyone starts screaming down my throut about ,OH we are only doing this to stop you all killing yourselves, have a look at the BIG list of incident reports for the last 10 years and see how many 95.10 aircraft are falling out of the sky compared with the long list of quasi GA aircraft masquarding as ULTRALIGHTS under the banner of an organisation formed for just that ULTRALIGHTS..............

 

 

[turboplanner]

You can still have safe construction with multiple inspections like we do with race cars; you just need to set up a volunteer organisation same as we have.

 

 

[kasper]

You can still have safe construction with multiple inspections like we do with race cars; you just need to set up a volunteer organisation same as we have.

Agreed - you CAN have a set of staged inspections as other use ... but the history of failures/incidents in RAAus shows that it is NOT the airframes that are failing but the operators ... so whilst you CAN have staged inspections there is no demonstrable issue that says its actually required ... minimum regulation to address actual risk is what the association BOARD should be all about and the BOARD SHOULD be pushing back HARD against anyone in CASA or the Tech office who wants X, Y and Z that is not supported by evidence or in line with a philosophy of minimum regulation.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It seems to me that RAA Aus is rapidly turning into a bloated semi CASA style organisation that will surely make all of the reasons it was started (freedom to allow the average person access to affordable flight, simplification of rules to allow people to build and operate their own aircraft, at their own risk with basic safety controls) a thing of the past. . . .

The AUF was formed to put a body between CASA and ultralight flyers. CASA was reasonably happy with that for many reasons mostly it saved CASA money and they just didn't want to have to think too much about such small scale aviation.

RAAus does exactly the same job as the AUF did both for Rec Aviation Pilots and CASA. CASA has no desire to be involved in administering the flying done by Rec Aviation Pilots or, for that matter, the low end of non-commercial GA.

 

BUt, anyone who thinks that CASA has delegated SAFETY regulation to RAAus and that RAAus can make up whatever rules it like is being mislead.

 

In its recent NPRM on the proposed Part 149 that is to govern bodies like RAAus, CASA makes it abundantly clear that bodies under Part 149 are there to ADMINISTER CASA's safety regime.

 

Accusing RAAus of becoming a mini-CASA makes no sense in that environment. The AUF and RAAus have always been a CASA delegate. Yes RAAus can and does have arguments with CASA about regulation but in the end, CASA calls the shots. Anyone who thinks that has not always been the case is missing the point of L, A, W law.

 

RAAus is an advocate for light aircraft pilots and maintainers and does a pretty good job of it as evidenced by the advances since the days of the 300 foot limit. It demands of CASA that they justify any restrictions placed on our flying. On that basis CASA is being pushed to lift restrictions on MTOW and access to CTA.

 

As regards staged inspections I readily concede that it is a step away from the ethos of design, build and fly it yourself. But, I come from a work environment that was totally systems based. All systems include checks at the appropriate point and feedback loops and those steps are in the system for only one reason - quality assurance and improvement. In our case read "quality" as "not killing your self due to an unforeseen design flaw or construction error.

 

Of course, if you are like a very special few who NEVER, EVER make a mistake then you can feel miffed about staged checks on your aircraft build. In the meantime, I'll happily stick with my belts and braces approach.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Agreed - you CAN have a set of staged inspections as other use ... but the history of failures/incidents in RAAus shows that it is NOT the airframes that are failing but the operators ... so whilst you CAN have staged inspections there is no demonstrable issue that says its actually required ... minimum regulation to address actual risk is what the association BOARD should be all about and the BOARD SHOULD be pushing back HARD against anyone in CASA or the Tech office who wants X, Y and Z that is not supported by evidence or in line with a philosophy of minimum regulation.

Agree; it would be great to be over the current abyss, and being able to match regulations against risks, and be in a position to negotiate that with CASA, and CASA accepting that because of the openness, and steady improvement in statistics.

And that is of course quite achievable.

 

 

[facthunter]

Proper construction technique using the principles and proven approach to it directly from AC 43.13-1B/2A (an FAA publication and quite a thick one) Reprinted by the AUF Inc.

 

" Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices AIRCRAFT INSPECTION REPAIR and ALTERATIONS"

 

would go a long way towards avoiding improper practices in aircraft construction. Common sense is not that common.

 

Also a builder having some concerns about some aspect Of his particular Aircraft's construction or design, should seek advice from appropriate sources DURING the build at the point of decision on exactly how something is done, before it's even commenced. We need to realise the limitations of having people signing off on stuff that they didn't supervise the entire production, assembly and suitability and quality of materials etc There are some people you wouldn't let change spark plugs without supervision. There are some people that shouldn't fly or build U/L planes. Should those who can be saddled with more inspections than needed. Any such requirement should have to be justified, not just applied for appearances or some inferred indemnity.

 

Everyone at some stage omits something but the build process should be such as to pick up a error, at the time because YOU check everything at least once. If you are treading new ground every idea should be tested with a sample , to prove the concept and quality of the product, and apply safety factors for variables.

 

A signature by some well intentioned person won't stop a failure where the inspection wouldn't in actuality have a high expectation of being extremely effective at discovering any problem. If it's partly dismantled,who inspects the inspectors effort. Nev

 

 

[bull]

The AUF was formed to put a body between CASA and ultralight flyers. CASA was reasonably happy with that for many reasons mostly it saved CASA money and they just didn't want to have to think too much about such small scale aviation.RAAus does exactly the same job as the AUF did both for Rec Aviation Pilots and CASA. CASA has no desire to be involved in administering the flying done by Rec Aviation Pilots or, for that matter, the low end of non-commercial GA.

BUt, anyone who thinks that CASA has delegated SAFETY regulation to RAAus and that RAAus can make up whatever rules it like is being mislead.

 

In its recent NPRM on the proposed Part 149 that is to govern bodies like RAAus, CASA makes it abundantly clear that bodies under Part 149 are there to ADMINISTER CASA's safety regime.

 

Accusing RAAus of becoming a mini-CASA makes no sense in that environment. The AUF and RAAus have always been a CASA delegate. Yes RAAus can and does have arguments with CASA about regulation but in the end, CASA calls the shots. Anyone who thinks that has not always been the case is missing the point of L, A, W law.

 

RAAus is an advocate for light aircraft pilots and maintainers and does a pretty good job of it as evidenced by the advances since the days of the 300 foot limit. It demands of CASA that they justify any restrictions placed on our flying. On that basis CASA is being pushed to lift restrictions on MTOW and access to CTA.

 

As regards staged inspections I readily concede that it is a step away from the ethos of design, build and fly it yourself. But, I come from a work environment that was totally systems based. All systems include checks at the appropriate point and feedback loops and those steps are in the system for only one reason - quality assurance and improvement. In our case read "quality" as "not killing your self due to an unforeseen design flaw or construction error.

 

Of course, if you are like a very special few who NEVER, EVER make a mistake then you can feel miffed about staged checks on your aircraft build. In the meantime, I'll happily stick with my belts and braces approach.

This statement hits the nail on the head,,because <YOU think that it,s required , it should be made law ah

 

 

[David Isaac]

This statement hits the nail on the head,,because <YOU think that it,s required , it should be made law ah

Bull,

For the benefit of us all would you explain the point you are trying to make about Don's post.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I have copied this post from the other thread 'RAAus General Meeting' as I think there is some confusion on what the central issue is.

 

It seems to me that the organization as a whole is working much more effectively and professionally than it was before, and that most of the complaints in this thread are big on rhetoric and short on fact. The membership spoke loud and clear on the reorganization of the institution. Let's let them get on with it.If anyone has a legitimate complaint, just use the available channels to have addressed and stop the ranting.

I agree the organisation is working effectively under the new Board. I dont believe the issue currently under discussion in this thread has anything to do with whether we should be an 'Inc'; or 'Ltd Co'. The issue has been somewhat confused by two separate threads. The issue at hand is clearly around the fact that a member appearing to follow the provisions within the new constitution attempted to put some resolutions to the AGM/GM in October and was denied that right as a member.This is a significant issue regardless of whether we support the resolutions or not. In any case I doubt they would get support except perhaps the first one; BUT that is NOT the issue here.

 

Seems some would prefer to work strictly legally and get nothing achieved.

Again this is not about stopping achieving anything. I think the new board are doing a great job in their endeavours to sort out the issues. The issue appears to be that either the board has incorrectly denied the resolutions, or we are not interpreting the constitution correctly, but I fear it appears to be the former.

 

Remember the rules in the constitution were set up by the board and voted on by the members. The problems and contradictions were identified by a number of people especially Kasper who said fix the problems before making them legally binding and now we are faced with the problems of not getting them right in the first place. You can't just pick and choose which rules we should follow - That is where we will really end up in trouble.

The simple solution here is to clear up the poorly worded constitution by a resolution to do so. Members on this forum agreed that was necessary, yet have not done that when we had opportunities to put special resolutions forward for this AGM and did NOT. So it needs to be done for the next General Meeting. We need to get the constitution right and no one would deny supporting a resolution that has support to do that. You simply cannot have a constitution that by its confused structure denies members rights to put resolutions of any kind.This isn't about costing legal money at all; so lets clear up our thinking on this and work towards some sensible resolutions to put forward to clean up the constitution and make sure we lodge them correctly which by my reading will need some clarification.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

This statement hits the nail on the head,,because <YOU think that it,s required , it should be made law ah

On the contrary Bull, I would much prefer this and most of the rest of regulations that affect Recreational Aviation to be in the form of RAAP (RAAus version of CASA CAAP). I think it is good advice to have somebody check your work when your life and the life of others depends on you getting it right first time. Trial and error are rarely afforded in our pastime.

Regulation should be at a high level like "You are required to conduct each flight safely" and have that supported by lots of good advice about how to achieve safe flight.

 

As others have said, the test for regulation is "Does this proposed regulation have a robust risk analysis that shows a regulation is required"?

 

 

[robinsm]

The AUF was formed to put a body between CASA and ultralight flyers. CASA was reasonably happy with that for many reasons mostly it saved CASA money and they just didn't want to have to think too much about such small scale aviation.RAAus does exactly the same job as the AUF did both for Rec Aviation Pilots and CASA. CASA has no desire to be involved in administering the flying done by Rec Aviation Pilots or, for that matter, the low end of non-commercial GA.

BUt, anyone who thinks that CASA has delegated SAFETY regulation to RAAus and that RAAus can make up whatever rules it like is being mislead.

 

In its recent NPRM on the proposed Part 149 that is to govern bodies like RAAus, CASA makes it abundantly clear that bodies under Part 149 are there to ADMINISTER CASA's safety regime.

 

Accusing RAAus of becoming a mini-CASA makes no sense in that environment. The AUF and RAAus have always been a CASA delegate. Yes RAAus can and does have arguments with CASA about regulation but in the end, CASA calls the shots. Anyone who thinks that has not always been the case is missing the point of L, A, W law.

 

RAAus is an advocate for light aircraft pilots and maintainers and does a pretty good job of it as evidenced by the advances since the days of the 300 foot limit. It demands of CASA that they justify any restrictions placed on our flying. On that basis CASA is being pushed to lift restrictions on MTOW and access to CTA.

 

As regards staged inspections I readily concede that it is a step away from the ethos of design, build and fly it yourself. But, I come from a work environment that was totally systems based. All systems include checks at the appropriate point and feedback loops and those steps are in the system for only one reason - quality assurance and improvement. In our case read "quality" as "not killing your self due to an unforeseen design flaw or construction error.

 

Of course, if you are like a very special few who NEVER, EVER make a mistake then you can feel miffed about staged checks on your aircraft build. In the meantime, I'll happily stick with my belts and braces approach.

Don, I for one, agree with the staged inspections. When I built my aircraft I had the L2 inspect it at my cost to make sure everything was ok... Silly if you dont. This was not the thrust of my post.

 

 

[bull]

Bull,For the benefit of us all would you explain the point you are trying to make about Don's post.

My point of this post is Don,s lanquage about ""HIS "" life being structured and the reasoning he use,s to justify 4 stage inspections of 95.10 aircraft construction to quote him,,, I readily concede that it is a step away from the ethos of design, build and fly it yourself. But, I come from a work environment that was totally systems based. All systems include checks at the appropriate point and feedback loops and those steps are in the system for only one reason - quality,,unquote. So by his reasoning if <HE thinks it should be done this way ,that's the way it has to be...................

 

 

[bull]

On the contrary Bull, I would much prefer this and most of the rest of regulations that affect Recreational Aviation to be in the form of RAAP (RAAus version of CASA CAAP). I think it is good advice to have somebody check your work when your life and the life of others depends on you getting it right first time. Trial and error are rarely afforded in our pastime.Regulation should be at a high level like "You are required to conduct each flight safely" and have that supported by lots of good advice about how to achieve safe flight.

As others have said, the test for regulation is "Does this proposed regulation have a robust risk analysis that shows a regulation is required"?

But Don, do,s this requirement for 4 stage inspections of aircraft built under ano,95.10 {an ano provided to allow experimentation of design ]show a hint of over regulation and added cost for members and as the record of failure to justify this,is not there, so where do,s your records of failure of experimental builder designed and flown SINGLE SEAT aircraft come from,,certainly not the incident reports of RAA as most if not all of recent failure have been factory designed aircraft and aircraft that have nothing to do with the original reasoning behind 95.10??????And do,s not this requiring others that are licenced by RAA to do these inspections then remove the onus on us of flying at our own risk? and put RAA at risk of legal claims because, an RAA inspector said it would not fail etc etc and would this not negate the need for our placards that raa make us put in our aircraft that we fly this aircraft at our own risk????PS and the reason I,m asking this question is these requirements for 4 stage inspections of 95.10 aircraft ARE NOT a CASA requirement but come from within RAA?????

 

 

[bull]

Check out this design and build of very high quality well proven aircraft construction for decades ,anyone building and designing a 95.10 aircraft ,,ALWAYS go to get the best advice and help from other very experienced builders and flyers ,because safety is always number one Don. Now this advice usually comes at a cost to the member doing the building ,of either multiple cups of coffee or tea or beers etc . Not having to try and find an L3 or 4 from some other district or area at large cost to the member must pay for them to come to us including travel cost etc {an example was when I had to get a condition report for my loehle singleseat 95.10 aircraft ,,ihad to pay 600 dollars to bring a l4 down to lakeside to do it as no other """LICENCED RAA inspector was available in my area so for no other reason than to make raa look good to CASA {who by the way DO NOT require these staged inspections.]..............RAA is becoming the money machine big brother.....

 

 

[bull]

[GALLERY=media, 3789]plane construction - YouTube by bull posted Sep 30, 2016 at 10:04 PM[/GALLERY]

 

 

[David Isaac]

[GALLERY=media, 3789]plane construction - YouTube by bull posted Sep 30, 2016 at 10:04 PM[/GALLERY]

Great video buddy. The age old proven techniques, real nice to see. Long live timber.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Love the video, thanks