Who to vote for RAAus election

[facthunter]

The super cheap rate often gets there late. Nev

 

 

[DWF]

My magazine has not yet arrived in my PO Box. But I do live in a far flung corner of the Empire.

 

If I manage to get it and send off my ballot papers (postmarked 31st) it will be well into August before they arrive at RAAus central.

 

[it often takes >7 days for my snail mail to arrive at an Eastern state address.]

 

I do not know any of the candidates personally but have spoken to MM on several occasions.

 

It appears to me, from their election statements, that all the candidates have appropriate qualifications for the board.

 

I was under the impression that candidates' election statements were to be a maximum of one page long. The first candidate's is 3 pages. Does this say anything - maybe just his Public Service background coming through.

 

The next 2 candidates seem to be fairly heavily involved in the aviation industry. Is this too much conflict of interest - or would it work in our (RAAus) favour?

 

Love him or hate him, MM has, in my opinion, done a fairly good job of getting RAAus back on track - not necessarily the track some would like, but one we can live with and progress from.

 

I am one of those who voted against the adoption of the new constitution - because, while I agree with much of it, I feel it has put too much control in the hands of the Directors and, as I feared, now that it is a fait acompli it will be very difficult to generate the momentum for further change.

 

Word on the performance of the last candidate has not trickled this far west and so it is difficult for me to make any judgement here.

 

I will vote (Aust Post willing) and will probably go with a bet each way - one old and one new.

 

DWF

 

:rotary:Just been up north to help with the mustering (from the ground unfortunately).

 

 

[Ayecapt]

My mag only arrived today - not much time to vote and send back in time.

I dont subscribe to the magazine

Election papers should go out by mail and in a marked envelope . No mag here and its the 23 rd.

 

The cost of running elections is fundamental to operating the organisation. You cant cut corners and be able to defend the integrity of the election. If just one member who wants to vote can show that the late delivery of a magazine caused he or she to miss out , then the organisation might have breached the constitution. Magazines go by a second or third grade of mail , delivery is not gauaranteed by a certain date.

 

 

[Dave English]

My mag arrived on the 21st. The envelope says it will ot be opened until July 31.

 

With Aus Post delivering every 3 days or so, that gives me until about Tuesday to post it if I'm lucky.

 

2 days to open it, read it and vote sounds to me like a breach of due process.

 

Certainly no time for discussion amongst the wider RAAUS community.

 

About the earlier boards: they set up the ULF, got everything we have today including the experimental category, LSA, sports pilots licences, built a 12000 member strong organisation which made a profit and had money in the bank, etc.

 

The present admin has seen the RAAUS shrink by 2500 members to 9500, makes a loss every year, nearly saw a sunami hit the industry with the Jabiru debacle, and has failed to meet their stated targets for the past 3 years including 750KG MTO, CTA and an Ultralight permit, and Sports Pilot is no longer distributed by post exept for this time 3 weeks late.

 

It seems to me that the present executive's attitude is that the good people who built the organisation and made it a success need not apply. I have only ever heard criticism by the two Michaels about the previous admins. I wonder what state the RAAUS will be in when the present executive move on the further their carreers, leaving others in their wake to pick up the pieces?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Present board has been there about a year. It was the previous people that let things run down. I am very happy with the good governance we now have.

 

 

[facthunter]

Mussolini made the trains run on time. Just sayin. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

how far back are you looking in reference to previous people some on the board have been there since we had 12000 members that oh why in the hell do I bother neil

 

 

[gandalph]

Present board has been there about a year. It was the previous people that let things run down. I am very happy with the good governance we now have.

I agree PMcC. I think the current crew are doing a good job for the members. It's interesting, but sadly, not surprising that none of the grumblers and knockers have seen fit to put their name forward for election Many are happy to talk the talk but not to walk the walk.

 

 

[kasper]

I agree PMcC. I think the current crew are doing a good job for the members. It's interesting, but sadly, not surprising that none of the grumblers and knockers have seen fit to put their name forward for election Many are happy to talk the talk but not to walk the walk.

When I put my money and mouth where I thought it could do some good I was totally shafted so there may be a lot of valid reasons to not with to take a beating again.

 

 

[facthunter]

Some people do criticise. It may be just destructive or perhaps constructive. Some say nothing no matter what as long as they can fly.. . Some would not praise certain teams no matter what good they do.. I don't think we should be required to" not criticise unless we run for the job", though I appreciate the concept you advance. It would be quite hard to get elected and some of those who have, have felt their contribution was not given much consideration. That bothers me and so it should bother a few others who have served on boards of management for NO remuneration on behalf off members many of whom can't even be bothered to vote. When things are perfect there will be no need for any adverse comment. That day by definition will never come. It would be hard to please many here, that seems obvious. I don't think I could get even close if I tried. Pilots are hard to please as they are fairly individualistic, amongst other things. YOUR representatives are the connection of the pilot body to the full time management and that relationship has to be effective in keeping the organisation on the "straight and narrow" responsive to your expressed wishes OR we have lost something essential. If growth and balanced books are the only criteria is that satisfactory? Nev

 

 

[coljones]

My mag arrived on the 21st. The envelope says it will ot be opened until July 31.With Aus Post delivering every 3 days or so, that gives me until about Tuesday to post it if I'm lucky.

2 days to open it, read it and vote sounds to me like a breach of due process.

 

Certainly no time for discussion amongst the wider RAAUS community.

 

About the earlier boards: they set up the ULF, got everything we have today including the experimental category, LSA, sports pilots licences, built a 12000 member strong organisation which made a profit and had money in the bank, etc.

 

The present admin has seen the RAAUS shrink by 2500 members to 9500, makes a loss every year, nearly saw a sunami hit the industry with the Jabiru debacle, and has failed to meet their stated targets for the past 3 years including 750KG MTO, CTA and an Ultralight permit, and Sports Pilot is no longer distributed by post exept for this time 3 weeks late.

 

It seems to me that the present executive's attitude is that the good people who built the organisation and made it a success need not apply. I have only ever heard criticism by the two Michaels about the previous admins. I wonder what state the RAAUS will be in when the present executive move on the further their carreers, leaving others in their wake to pick up the pieces?

The previous administration and their employees left a couple of bombs in the cupboard. The current admin is doing a pretty good job. I would vote for the 2retiring directors (if I get some ballot paperback)

 

 

[gandalph]

When I put my money and mouth where I thought it could do some good I was totally shafted so there may be a lot of valid reasons to not with to take a beating again.

Shafted or failed to gain enough support for your viewpoint? Democracy can be painful.

I should add Kasper, that although I didn't support you motions at the Canberra AGM I applaud your tenacity and intestinal fortitude in vigorously promoting them. As you say, you had a view and you stood up here and put it to the test. It didn't get up but you had a go and for that you deserve much credit. It's the "referees" that stand behind the fence in the safety of the crowd but won't don the Jersey and get into the game that annoy.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I agree PMcC. I think the current crew are doing a good job for the members. It's interesting, but sadly, not surprising that none of the grumblers and knockers have seen fit to put their name forward for election Many are happy to talk the talk but not to walk the walk.

Interesting observation. I certainly do not agree. I did stand, and was elected, and put in a lot of time over 3 months. The change, which I accept 800 people supported, and some still do, was not (IMO) in the best interests of RAA - however I accept the decision - but will NOT be associated with the current format. So to say anyone with a different opinion of the direction being taken should stand, is an over simplication of the situation. I do not regret wasting my time trying to put forward alternative views but the constitutional change has produced a situation which I will certainly NOT be involved with in any representative position.

 

So it is not a light hearted decision that I made to be a non participating flying member, but a matter of principle -

 

I am happy for you in believing the NEW approach is the correct one, I just happen to have a completely different view.

 

 

[kasper]

Shafted or failed to gain enough support for your viewpoint? Democracy can be painful.I should add Kasper, that although I didn't support you motions at the Canberra AGM I applaud your tenacity and intestinal fortitude in vigorously promoting them. As you say, you had a view and you stood up here and put it to the test. It didn't get up but you had a go and for that you deserve much credit. It's the "referees" that stand behind the fence in the safety of the crowd but won't don the Jersey and get into the game that annoy.

No point re-hashing the points about the errors I thought existed but just to be clear - I was not allowed to actually raise a point of order at an agm. Not because it was not about an agenda item - it was - but because ... the answer I got was just our lawyer says no.

Against that a reasonable and sane response is just give up and let them run the org into the ground - something will come along to replace it because casa can't handle it and 5000+ pilots and 3400+ airframes is too big to just disappear.

 

 

[gandalph]

I am happy for you in believing the NEW approach is the correct one, I just happen to have a completely different view.

Yup.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I would like to vote for people who did not belong to those who think $300 an hour is reasonable.

 

I have noticed that ex-airforce and ex-government people have little understanding of costs. Why would they? they have always been where other people's money pays the bills.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

9.3% increase in membership fees

 

18% increase for aircraft registration

 

$22 late fee on membership

 

all tough decisions

 

All unavoidable because the last board...

 

 

[kasper]

9.3% increase in membership fees18% increase for aircraft registration

$22 late fee on membership

 

all tough decisions

 

All unavoidable because the last board...

Would that be 9.3% increase in the SECOND year of the current board ? And remind me the % increase that the first year had given the withdrawal of the magazine without adjustment to the fee? That might start looking like 20-25% over two years ... and still we are not breaking even ....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

$250 membership next year and $180 airctaft registration

 

 

[Riley]

No point re-hashing the points about the errors I thought existed but just to be clear - I was not allowed to actually raise a point of order at an agm. Not because it was not about an agenda item - it was - but because ... the answer I got was just our lawyer says no. Against that a reasonable and sane response is just give up and let them run the org into the ground - something will come along to replace it because casa can't handle it and 5000+ pilots and 3400+ airframes is too big to just disappear.

Re your second sentence, I should be reticent (ashamed?) in admitting that I reached that state a year or so back. I haven't rcvd my 'free' magazine containing ballot papers yet but I'm totally unconcerned by the fact that I obviously couldn't get them back in time even if I were wanting to participate in the election. The two Mikeys and their curious management (?) style have destroyed my passion as to where RAA takes us in the future. When it gets too ripe to swallow, sadly I shall quit aviation and go back to vintage cars. Riley

 

 

[Robert]

Personally I think RAAus is slowly dying. For the type of people it should be catering for (inexpensive low cost flying) its becoming too expensive and bureaucratic. I agree with Riley.

 

Re your second sentence, I should be reticent (ashamed?) in admitting that I reached that state a year or so back. I haven't rcvd my 'free' magazine containing ballot papers yet but I'm totally unconcerned by the fact that I obviously couldn't get them back in time even if I were wanting to participate in the election. The two Mikeys and their curious management (?) style have destroyed my passion as to where RAA takes us in the future. When it gets too ripe to swallow, sadly I shall quit aviation and go back to vintage cars. Riley

[storchy neil]

yep and that goes for me as well Adelaide was the last straw for me the way that kasper was treated what frank did ian did to get the organization to follow our rules when my member ship runs out another not renewing

 

another plane to the scrap heap neil

 

 

[poteroo]

Do any have other commercial or conflict of interest in RAA - for example running flying schools or importer or agent or sell aircraft for example.

My perception is that there are quite a few members who oppose any owner of a flying school, or an instructor, being elected to the Board. Why is this so important to some members?

 

Having a commercial interest, plus a good knowledge of the aviation industry, should not necessarily be automatically deemed a 'conflict-of-interest'. That will only occur if the elected person does not declare fully their 'interests', and does not step aside when contentious, and conflicting, issues are voted on. Doesn't prevent them providing sound comment on issues - just provided they don't vote if there's possible c-o-i.

 

Of course, it's probably best that there be a balance on the Board. That means we need to elect a mix of talents, and I think that is now happening. Like others on this forum, I try to judge applicants on their resume'. But, as of today, I have not received my Sport Pilot, and for that, RAAus - I'm not a happy camper. Online voting will have to come. happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

My perception is that there are quite a few members who oppose any owner of a flying school, or an instructor, being elected to the Board. Why is this so important to some members?Having a commercial interest, plus a good knowledge of the aviation industry, should not necessarily be automatically deemed a 'conflict-of-interest'. That will only occur if the elected person does not declare fully their 'interests', and does not step aside when contentious, and conflicting, issues are voted on. Doesn't prevent them providing sound comment on issues - just provided they don't vote if there's possible c-o-i.

 

Of course, it's probably best that there be a balance on the Board. That means we need to elect a mix of talents, and I think that is now happening. Like others on this forum, I try to judge applicants on their resume'. But, as of today, I have not received my Sport Pilot, and for that, RAAus - I'm not a happy camper. Online voting will have to come. happy days,

It's important to have flying schools and instructors involved because they make their living out of the sport and have first hand experience of the hurdles and shifts which restrain growth.

It's also important to have a mix; if all of one side of the sport are making the decisions they will tend to make them with an eye for the advantage of their sector, which can damage the other sectors and kill their sector anyway; recent history is a good example of this, and that's probably why people are touchy.

 

However it's not logical to keep referring to the Board in the sense that it existed before RAA Ltd; you don't have that representation any longer. Now you are just voting for directors which is a vastly different thing.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

flying schools will push for more endorsements

 

aviation maintenance firms will push for more inspections

 

aviation insurance firms will push for more extensive cover

 

its not hard to join the dots between self interest of part time RAA directors and full time business owners