RAAus Board Election 2019

[turboplanner]

 RAA is neither an advocate for members [Agreed as it demonstrably advocates for itself] nor a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth [bS Any reading of Part 149 and particularly the current Draft AC149 which is out for consultation clearly details enforcement. As CASA can only approve the Operations Manual if it is consistent with the laws of the Commonwealth (eg Day VFR) the Ops manual becomes subordinate legislation.]

 

It's structure is spelled out by CASA in writing; it is a Self Administering Organization. [bS the structure is ordained by the incorporating legislation (the Corporations Act) and the rules of the organisation registered with ASIC - CASA issues a Part 149 certificate to the ASAO on the basis of an exposition that details its key personnel capacities, policies and procedures, ie its operations and technical standards. see AC149 page :

"Chapter 6 - ASAO aviation administration and enforcement rules

Chapter 6, comprising section 36, defines, for the purposes of regulation 149.290 of CASR,

further requirements for ASAO aviation administration and enforcement rules. The requirements

relate to the inclusion, in an ASAO's exposition, of processes to report to CASA7 on the:

• management of safety risks arising from the overriding of a safety decision of a member

of the ASAO's key personnel

• notification of CASA by the ASAO, of an ASAO authorisation holder affected by an

enforcement decision of the ASAO of the holder's review rights

• inclusion in an ASAO's exposition of processes to notify CASA in relation to the

exercise of enforcement powers and preventive, corrective, remedial or disciplinary

actions taken by the ASAO."

 

CASA does the regulating giving RAA some exemptions in return for RAA managing its [aviation related] affairs.

 

The clause you quoted about liability is necessary in relation to the activities you mentioned because CASA administers the categories mentioned. [You missed the point - I was proposing that CASA should take over the aviation administration aspects of RAAus as has happened in South Africa]

 

RAA is still comfortably outside that control,  and so does not need to be listed in the liability statement, and the only reason more exciting developments haven't occurred is the fault of its leaders who for some years have virtually announced no new policies and have ignored the old ones like developing rag and tube and running successful fly ins. [perhaps you actually agree that RAAus should get out of the regulation business]

 

I just want to register my disinterest in this nosepicking exercise which could go on forever without ever having any bearing on anything.

 

The thread is about the coming RAA election, and it's so easy to distract people from the central problem Kasper is facing.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

just want to register my disinterest in this nosepicking exercise

 

Dont you really mean "dont let the facts get in the way of a good argument"

 

 

[farri]

So, the big question is, how do we put a bomb under the apathetic majority of members to at least dispense with those that are obviously not working in our interest ?

 

The bigger question is! "how do you put a bomb under the apathetic members" and "who`s interests` should RA-Aus be working to maintain and/or improve"?

 

I`ve been flying since the early days of the AUF, I`m RA-Aus member 000993 and current! I fly regularly from my property and paid RA-Aus $ 250 a couple of days ago for the privilege...  My interests and I dare say many others like me are completely different to those who are pushing for aircraft weight increases and flight from public aerodromes and into CTA, so to cut it short!...Who`s interests should RA-Aus be working on???

 

Franco ( Frank Arri )

 

Ps, Anyone, please! convince me I should bother to vote for the current board or anyone else who put their hand up for election!!!

 

 

[Deceiver]

RAAus is calling for nominations to fill 3 Board positions. Nominations open 3 June 2019 and close 5 July 2019, 5:00pm EST.

 

The RAA Board consists of 7 members, with fixed, but staggered, terms; which means only a few have to stand down at each election, but are eligible for re-election for a 3 year term.

 

The Current Board: **Those standing down (as far as I know - please correct me if I am wrong)

 

Michael Monck (Chairman) 0419 244 794 [email protected] (Elected 2017)

 

Rod Birrell 0422 446 622 [email protected] (Elected 2018)

 

Luke Bayly 0421 463 967 [email protected] (Elected 2018)

 

Barry Windle (Replaced Tony King on retirement 2019 from 2018 election result)

 

**Alan Middleton 0407 356 948 [email protected]

 

**Trevor Bange 0429 378 370 [email protected]

 

**Eugene Reid 0428 824 700 [email protected]

 

Nomination information is in the Members Portal on the RAAus website. Being a member is the only qualification. Candidates are required to submit a photo and an election statement up to 750 words, to be published in the magazine.

 

At the "travelling around and meeting the members" gig that I attended this year, they were talking about wanting the Board to be more representative of the membership. They felt it lacked younger people, women, pilots with experience in weight-shift, gyro, 95-10, rag & tube, builders. But if you have the time and energy - NOMINATE!

 

Late to this thread, but Eugene is not standing down - he's required to stand again for his position as it has been 3 years since he was elected.

 

Unsure about the others.

 

 

[facthunter]

There was plenty of confusion as to were this "Show" should GO in the past, so we ended up with the "NEW GA" concept and a" Professional Management can fix ALL ILLS"  situation. More POWERFUL and remote from the members.. It has a monopoly over the membership as there's no alternate path so take it or leave it is your choice at the moment  unless a UNITED effort is necessary to rectify a perceived problem. I doubt WE will ever be anything much like United but love to be proven wrong..  as to identifying  (in precise terms) the issues, and rectifying them sensibly, well good luck there, too. I've run out of puff. You can only be devastated a certain number of times, and that's it. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Dont you really mean "dont let the facts get in the way of a good argument"

 

No, Kasper's going to have a hard enough job as it is getting the focus of the members to vote without the confusion of trying to reinvent the wheel, which no one has been invited to do.

 

 

[Admin]

Completely agree Nev..."You can only be devastated so many times"

 

Perhaps it's time to start the ball rolling again and challenge what the RAAus is today and what we have lost as members...pity it's too late for me to put my hand up again this time and like previous times it is not just some of the board but the CEO as well...I personally don't think we have had a good CEO since Lee who had a good balance between business, passion for flying and doing right by members.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

No, Kasper's going to have a hard enough job as it is getting the focus of the members to vote without the confusion of trying to reinvent the wheel, which no one has been invited to do.

 

Turbs, surprisingly I agree with you that focusing members on an election is hard work whether its RAAus or any other assemblage which is why we have the parliaments we have today - most of the voters only vote because they have to, the rest of the time they will only whinge to their mates (or "friends on social media"). I have have previously put my hand up for election in RAAus  - have you? And I offered to nominate Kasper.

 

As for re-inventing the wheel, passive acceptance of CASA edicts has gotten Oz aviation to where it is today and I will not resile from arguing the point that recreational aviation can no longer be organised in the way is proposed under Part 149 at every opportunity.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Good on Kasper and other's who have given a lot, but the numbers and situation are against you. The "I JUST want to fly"  is alive and well. Apathy got us where we are and will keep us there. .I can understand  that most feel they can't do much to fix problems and just do the most with what's there, BUT the BIG worry is no one knows WHERE we are going. When you are planning  and spending money you  need some assurance of continuity and direction.  Nev

 

 

[NT5224]

Late to this thread, but Eugene is not standing down - he's required to stand again for his position as it has been 3 years since he was elected.

 

Unsure about the others. 

 

Does anybody know when the current chair (who  seems to have had a directive hand in the organisation's current direction),  is due for a spell?  

 

Alan

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Late to this thread, but Eugene is not standing down - he's required to stand again for his position as it has been 3 years since he was elected. 

 

Unsure about the others.

 

Under the Constitution Eugene is required to stand down.  He is allowed to re-nominate and, if he gets enough votes, can serve on the Board for another 3 years.

 

Does anybody know when the current chair (who  seems to have had a directive hand in the organisation's current direction),  is due for a spell?  

 

Alan

 

Michael Monke was elected, with a large majority, in 2017, for a 3 year term.

 

 

[Deceiver]

Under the Constitution Eugene is required to stand down.  He is allowed to re-nominate and, if he gets enough votes, can serve on the Board for another 3 years.

 

Semantics, really.

 

 

[kasper]

Update

 

Following further conversations with RAAus I was offered the opportunity to amend my election statement.  I thanked the board for the opportunity to amend my election statement after closing date of the nominations and did agree that 1 word could be changed to clarify part of my opinion.

 

I feel I need to let members know this as the election statement I now have with RAAus is not exactly as per my original lodged statement.

 

However, this was not sufficient and the board are further considering if they will publish my statement and if they do how it will appear.

 

Their nominated options - at their decision - will be:

 

1. publish as agreed (1 word changed from that provided)

 

2. edit the statement to remove what they find offensive and state that they have edited it

 

3. publish as agreed (1 word changed from that provided) but also publish a board response in the magazine against the statement

 

I hope they go for 1. because 2. and 3. to me look a lot like you can say whatever you like as your opinion provided we agree with it but if we do not we will say its not ok.

 

I'll update when I hear further.

 

The decision of the board is that option 1 will be followed - just the single word change - so it will appear in the August issue of the RAAus magazine.

 

I will open a separate thread for candidates statements/discussion and will post my statement and will engage with queries etc that people may have through there.

 

 

[Kiter]

RAAus is calling for nominations to fill 3 Board positions. Nominations open 3 June 2019 and close 5 July 2019, 5:00pm EST.

 

The RAA Board consists of 7 members, with fixed, but staggered, terms; which means only a few have to stand down at each election, but are eligible for re-election for a 3 year term.

 

The Current Board: **Those standing down (as far as I know - please correct me if I am wrong)

 

Michael Monck (Chairman) 0419 244 794 [email protected] (Elected 2017)

 

Rod Birrell 0422 446 622 [email protected] (Elected 2018)

 

Luke Bayly 0421 463 967 [email protected] (Elected 2018)

 

Barry Windle (Replaced Tony King on retirement 2019 from 2018 election result)

 

**Alan Middleton 0407 356 948 [email protected]

 

**Trevor Bange 0429 378 370 [email protected]

 

**Eugene Reid 0428 824 700 [email protected]

 

Nomination information is in the Members Portal on the RAAus website. Being a member is the only qualification. Candidates are required to submit a photo and an election statement up to 750 words, to be published in the magazine.

 

At the "travelling around and meeting the members" gig that I attended this year, they were talking about wanting the Board to be more representative of the membership. They felt it lacked younger people, women, pilots with experience in weight-shift, gyro, 95-10, rag & tube, builders. But if you have the time and energy - NOMINATE!

 

Terms for Monck and Middleton end 2020

 

Terms for Birrell and Bayly end 2021

 

This leaves Windle, Bange and Reid due this year.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The 6 candidates for the 3 positions have been announced (sitting members in bold):

 

Trevor Bange

 

Eugene Reid

 

Barry Windle

 

Kirk Sutton

 

Alex van der End

 

Tapan Dave

 

Election statements are on the RAA website, log in as a member first.  Voting opens today and closes 27th Sept.

 

Best wishes to all 6.  Kirk already has a presence on the Forum.  Does anyone know Alex & Tapan, or comment on the others' views on issues such as governance, weight increase, support for rag & tube, CTA, member engagement etc, etc.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Barry is 100% with Monk & Linke - if that is your desire.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Who should I vote for? My main priorities are for encouraging educated owner maintenance and fighting for fairer safer airspace.

 

Secondary priorities are for saving members money and communicating with the constituency, preferably right here.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Who should I vote for?

 

Bruce, I don’t think anyone should go there.  What individuals stand for and thereby the direction RAA will go is really up to the individual member to decide for themselves.  Comments about individual office bearers (myself included) are personal views/observations  which may have some influence on opinions (and maybe not) but ultimately it is up to each member to decide who they consider the best individual to represent their view of where the organisation should head.

 

I just hope members consider seriously what they want, contact current and prospective board members directly if in doubt, and then make an informed decision based on THEIR belief of the correct direction they would like to see RAA proceed.

 

Everyone will not be in complete agreement no matter who is ultimately elected.

 

 

[turboplanner]

  [perhaps you actually agree that RAAus should get out of the regulation business]

 

If we were still in the pre-1980s prescriptive era what you said would be correct, but we are not, and if you don't understand what governments did then and the strategies they've used to shift risk from them to users, then you can't understand the meaning of "self administration" in the current era, which effectively results in users paying as against the previous governments paying. The users now administer their own risks (whether they think they do or not), with some exceptions like the automotive and transport industries where governments continue to administer, along with CASA administering the airspace in which we fly and GA. Beyond that, self administration means those involved in activities which involve risk have to decide how they are going to address that risk, and usually that involves having their own safety regulations. Self regulation doesn't just involve the President sending out an email once a year telling everyone to be careful.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks Frank, but suppose I was to vote for somebody who thought all maintenance should be done by a professional? 

 

I reckon it's fair enough to ask what people stand for before you vote for them. 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It isn’t about what people believe at that level. It’s about their ability to contribute to responsible decisions on matters that are brought before the board. And to ask the hard questions about what is being done or not done by the CEO. And most importantly to choose the CEO when that is needed. No board needs members bringing their own agendas to the position. We need to know their backgrounds and qualifications, not their personal agendas.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Beyond that, self administration means those involved in activities which involve risk have to decide how they are going to address that risk, and usually that involves having their own safety regulations

 

Unfortunately, civil aviation regulation has potential criminal sanctions. Delegating policing of those functions to a private, largely volunteer private body is a recipe for disastrous and peverse outcomes. Any reading of CASA's investigation manual demonstrates how careful investigators have to be in assembling an investigation. Having well meaning but ill equipped amateurs carry out investigations, however preliminary, may well prejudice any CASA case that may well end up before the courts BUT more importantly may trample over the individuals rights. Many criminal cases fall over on small but important matters of process.

 

Not everything is about risk, but having said that CASA and others have been complicit in a conspiracy to produce accident rate figures (which I am sure would agree is a measure of the success or otherwise of risk mitigation) that support their desire to hive off administration of recreational aviation. This has been a deliberate strategy over the last twenty years or more. For example, how can the GFA claim the number of hours flown that they report to BITRE when they do not even collect the hours flown from aircraft owners?(and BITRE know this) And there has been plenty of discussion on this forum about the hours flown reported by RAAus.

 

Add to that the lack of uniformity across the ICAO nations in accident rates and classifications let alone hours flown reporting. This creates the perfect scenario where CASA can prove to old adage of "facts, figures and damned lies" to be correct.

 

Unfortunately, no individual will be able to withstand the financial (and thus legal) might of CASA to prove a case of negligence against CASA in the circumstance where CASA's approval of a manual under part 149 (or even the current CAO's) contributed to an accident even if was the case. CASA have too much to lose. Ultimately the self regulation buck stops with the ultimate regulator as with any other form of delegation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Unfortunately, civil aviation regulation has potential criminal sanctions. Delegating policing of those functions to a private, largely volunteer private body is a recipe for disastrous and peverse outcomes. Any reading of CASA's investigation manual demonstrates how careful investigators have to be in assembling an investigation. Having well meaning but ill equipped amateurs carry out investigations, however preliminary, may well prejudice any CASA case that may well end up before the courts BUT more importantly may trample over the individuals rights. Many criminal cases fall over on small but important matters of process.

 

Not everything is about risk, but having said that CASA and others have been complicit in a conspiracy to produce accident rate figures (which I am sure would agree is a measure of the success or otherwise of risk mitigation) that support their desire to hive off administration of recreational aviation. This has been a deliberate strategy over the last twenty years or more. For example, how can the GFA claim the number of hours flown that they report to BITRE when they do not even collect the hours flown from aircraft owners?(and BITRE know this) And there has been plenty of discussion on this forum about the hours flown reported by RAAus.

 

Add to that the lack of uniformity across the ICAO nations in accident rates and classifications let alone hours flown reporting. This creates the perfect scenario where CASA can prove to old adage of "facts, figures and damned lies" to be correct.

 

Unfortunately, no individual will be able to withstand the financial (and thus legal) might of CASA to prove a case of negligence against CASA in the circumstance where CASA's approval of a manual under part 149 (or even the current CAO's) contributed to an accident even if was the case. CASA have too much to lose. Ultimately the self regulation buck stops with the ultimate regulator as with any other form of delegation.

 

Nowhere did I suggest that RAA should piggy back on CASA's prescriptive and proscriptive regulations, so what you're saying there doesn't apply.

 

There's absolutely no reason to introduce your own regulations, assuming legal responsibility for doing that when there is an existing regulation which CASA carries the legal liability for.

 

GFA issues belong with GFA, not here, and if they are not correctly reporting figures to Bitre that's between BITRE and GFA.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...having a hands on management responsibility to Directors, who did not has come as a shock to a few of the people who pushed the organisation into its present position. And of course the well known apologists fir this move have shot through like a Bondi tram.

 

Turbs I am probably one of those people you write of. As part of a large group very disillusioned with the state our association had been allowed to get into, we pushed the management to reform.

 

Were we wrong? I'm not happy with some aspects of our current direction, but would we have been any better had we not rebelled?

 

 

[turboplanner]

The bigger question is! "how do you put a bomb under the apathetic members" and "who`s interests` should RA-Aus be working to maintain and/or improve"?

 

I`ve been flying since the early days of the AUF, I`m RA-Aus member 000993 and current! I fly regularly from my property and paid RA-Aus $ 250 a couple of days ago for the privilege...  My interests and I dare say many others like me are completely different to those who are pushing for aircraft weight increases and flight from public aerodromes and into CTA, so to cut it short!...Who`s interests should RA-Aus be working on???

 

Franco ( Frank Arri )

 

Ps, Anyone, please! convince me I should bother to vote for the current board or anyone else who put their hand up for election!!!

 

I'm not one to say "if you feel that way, then you should stand for election" because life never works that way, and it's not necessary for a member to take on an official position just because he comes out and speaks the truth.

 

However, you're one of the few people who has learnt how to enjoy flying on a budget; who can go out on any fine day and fly without breaking the bank and without spending his life trying to register the unregisterable etc.

 

So you should speak out; you should explain that it is only by voting to preserve that way of flying that you'll preventy others from morphing the Association into GA2 with no advantages ove GA plus an annual fee for others to fly what THEY want to fly.