I kid you not revisited

[bilby54]

A few months back a discussion was started about a rogue operator in a mobile flying school that caused all manner of flying grief, poor training practices and outright dismal airmanship. The person was a con beyond belief and managed to pull the wool over the collective eyes of the RAAus with threats of legal action.:yuk:

 

I mentioned in that thread that I was the idiot who bought the school in the complete confidence that it was sanctioned by the same organisation but was denied the oportunity to operate it.thumb_down A major contributor to these forums and to rec aviation in general, Tony Hayes, challenged me to confront the RAAus board to explain the reason behind that decision and their stance on mobile flying training facilities in general. (I hope Tony does not mind as I have a deep respect for his knowledge and distant friendship).

 

I emailed the president and every member of the board with roughly the same requests as outlined above and got a Maxwell Smart 'cone of silence' response from all but one interstate member. I have waited for almost two months for a reply or acknowledgement but nothing!

 

I wonder how many others out there have asked a question and received a similar reply? I wonder how many have waited with baited breath to find out how many members there are in the latest issue of the glossy magazine but not received a reply to their question.

 

Yep, I am dissappointed with the organisation that I have supported for many years but I do not want this to become a mud slinging competition against the RAAus, just a simple question; Are you happy with how the organisation responds to your particular situation? Is a nill response a sign of a progressive organisation or are you happy with how things are? Oops, that's two questions, silly me..

 

Remember that you might one day be faced with a similar situation so consider how you would feel with a blanket of silence.

 

Any board member response would be greatly welcomed.

 

Bilby54

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

So why cant the school still be run by a different person, i know a few people who went through with Bill and if it wasnt for the fact that he would travel to them they probably wouldnt have had the time to learn to fly.

 

I personally think a mobile school is great for the industry and the only reasons i beleive they (RAA) have 'fixed' schools is to limit competition in certain geographic regions.

 

What does someones actions at dive bombing a womans refuge have anything to do with the new owner of his business ?

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I personally think a mobile school is great for the industry and the only reasons i beleive they (RAA) have 'fixed' schools is to limit competition in certain geographic regions.

Why would they want to limit competition? Competition is good for the industry, keeps prices down, encourages more people to take up flying and weeds out the bad operators. And besides, wouldn't this sort of behaviour be considered as anti-competitive and therefore illegal under the trade practices act?

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

And besides, wouldn't this sort of behaviour be considered as anti-competitive and therefore illegal under the trade practices act?

YES, better ask the RAA board why there are not mobile schools ? They must know the reason as they set the rules.

 

Just out of interest, what is their policy on somebody opening a school at the same airport as an existing operation ? For example if I wanted to set up a school at Canberra airport but there was already a school at Canberra airport would I be told there was not enough training available at that location and be asked to move to say Goulburn as an example ?

 

I am just wondering what their policy is on multiple flying schools especially in smaller airport locations, perhaps somebody can answer this. I just want to know out of interest, I'm not going to start a school anywhere.

 

 

[sain]

I admit i'm not a particularly difficult user of RA-AUS's services, but most times I've needed something I could just call and ask, or roll up at their shopfront (its close to work) and get what I needed straight away.

 

Your situation is a bit different though - your effectively asking them to admit fault, which nobody ever likes to do, and by using email your giving them an easy way to leave it in the too hard basket until it scrolls off the bottom of their inbox and they can forget about it.

 

I think your best bet is to try again, but keep a positive attitude while dealing with them. Try calling the office and asking to speak to the ops manager (i think he would be the one who deals with that stuff). When you get him on the line, explain the problem (avoiding blaming them for anything) and ask him about what needs to happen to get the school started. Offer suggestions like getting the schools equipment (if i remeber rightly the plane was a shocker) and facilities inspected by a party nominated by RA-AUS. Highlight the fact that you are completely seperate from the old owner, and he has no stake in the business. Be as professional and unemotional as you can manage. Your just a nice guy who wants to run a flying school and help RA-Aus gather some more members....

 

If he says something like "i'll get back to you" give him a couple of days and call again. Keep calling. Don't let long delays happen, but remeber that your going to need to work with them to get a school going.

 

If he says its a board decision then ask if it can added to the agenda for the next meeting for it to be reviewed (even if he claims its final).

 

Remeber that they do have certain requirements for a school (such as having a training room for ground school etc) and a mobile school may not meet them.

 

Best of luck getting the school running again.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Just out of interest, what is their policy on somebody opening a school at the same airport as an existing operation ? For example if I wanted to set up a school at Canberra airport but there was already a school at Canberra airport would I be told there was not enough training available at that location and be asked to move to say Goulburn as an example ?

I hope not, I am in Canberra. :) And what if there is already a school in Canberra but you don't like their methods, instructors or whatever. Do thye have the right to remove your choice and force you to travel an hour away to Goulburn just because they want to protect the business interests of a local guy who has an RA-Aus sanctioned monopoly in place?

 

I am just wondering what their policy is on multiple flying schools especially in smaller airport locations, perhaps somebody can answer this. I just want to know out of interest, I'm not going to start a school anywhere.

But seriously, why would they care? To an extent they need to ensure that the industry remains healthy (a whole lot of closures wouldn't be a good look) but on the whole due diligence is the responsibility of any business owner. RA-Aus should limit their involvement to ensuring that flying schools are safe, meet certain standards, etc. And besides, have they really got the resources to effectively assess the size of the market in any given location?

 

There are better ways to protect the industry than preventing competition. I would hope that they wouldn't restrict one persons operations just to protect someone elses.

 

 

[sain]

To be honest I don't think they would care about multiple schools in the same area. You certainly get that happening in GA (look at bankstown). Personally I'd be a little hesitant about setting up right next door to an existing flying school.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I am going to add my couple of bobs worth to this for a number of reasons.

 

First of all – Bilby54. No probs with using my name Bill, we go back far enough now anyway!

 

The response scenario is what I warned you that I would expect that you would receive. The point is that you made the enquiry on a legitimate matter (and quite an important one in that there are so many implications in the areas of member catchment, in-field safety support etc etc) and those have been ignored. So that is now right out in the open – again!

 

Harking to other points made in this thread so far: I do not feel that ‘dive bombing’ made any impact on RAAus and any decisions taken. What apparently made an impact was that the jail term awarded for the act was clear grounds for expulsion from the movement let alone just removal of ratings. That apparently was stayed for quite some time by threats of legal action. In this situation RAAus has an obligation to its members that it does not waste their money on lost court cases – so they (very correctly) took their time getting their position firm.

 

RAAus actually had this guy with his ‘slip through the cracks’ bit and that came about on the introduction of the PMI requirement for instructor rating renewal. Unfortunately senior management once again stuffed up and in a very soon after following re-write of the Ops Manual left a loophole you could barrel roll a Flying Fortress through!

 

That was taken full advantage of and RAAus did not have a leg to stand on – but were going to set a precedent of mismanagement and poor operational control that (as a member) I would not tolerate if the movement was taken to court as was threatened. So I sorted the issue out for them and what I did they approved. But at the same time I also removed instructor training ratings so that truncated part of the ‘rot pyramid’ quite considerably.

 

The actual history of the Mobile FTF is more convoluted in terms of for many years allegedly skating so close to the edge that it was laughable (but possibly just legal - eg three day tours of the outback as a ‘TIF’ were alleged and I believe even advertised)?

 

But response from top level management was virtually non-existent and they continually caved in – as in fact they did on so many occasions with high powered members and even at the expense of a clear flight safety risk with formal reports given them in writing from a variety of sources (including LAMEs so I was told).

 

FTF competition controlled by RAAus. This may have been a reasonable point to speculate upon but I have absolutely no problem in that area and know of no cases where any FTF has been denied by AUF/RAAus on a competition control basis. There are far too many examples where multiple schools have started at a single airfield and competition sorts them out – usually at the expense of a price war, consequent falling standards and the ultimate loss to students and training quality.

 

But to return to Bill’s main point. He basically reported that he had formally enquired of the President and all of the Board Members individually and was effectively ignored over a quite legitimate issue that is of critical importance in so many areas.

 

My contacts with AUF/RAAus are mixed – but quite clear cut as evidenced by time. In the Airworthiness area I (and TOSG) have maintained excellent relationships with the Tech Office and we have worked together extremely well. I am indebted to successive Tech Managers, some of whom have furnished me with information (suitably de-identified to member identity – that I am not interested in anyway) that has saved me years of work and enabled me to pick up a phone and answer horrible questions in seconds because I have the information that I need to establish what the hell the caller is talking about! So some of our members do get extremely accurate and responsible response and get if free of charge and no charge to RAAus either.

 

With Operations my response has been very mixed. It basically boils down to if what I am working on fits in with what they currently have in mind then I have had good response. If it is a ‘tricky’ subject then it is ‘shelved’ in the hope you will get bored, give up and go away.

 

With politics/The Board – it has been much the same.

 

Now, for some of you people out there who piously (and correctly) come back and say “take it to your local Board member, or the President, or the CEO, or one of the Managers” – It does not work and I am going to spell out exactly why!

 

That would work if we had a normal Honorary Control structure but we only have that in name not in practical terms. I have no grizzle with Board Members – many of them are able and most well intentioned- but find themselves muzzled. I have no particular grizzle with the President or the Executive – they are an honorary body doing most exacting jobs that become more difficult day by day. I have no particular grizzle with the present Managers – but be careful with them please! They have to obey Board Policy – not make it! If it gets too hard then they have no choice but to kick it upstairs and that can take months.

 

That last bit is where the rot sets in. I will state clearly that I have no reason to presently believe that there is ANY CONSPIRACY going on in RAAus at any level!

 

So the way it goes (the way it certainly went in my days on the Board) a member puts a query to a local rep. The rep notifies the Board. If the query is benign then it was sorted out by Board Member vote between Board meetings. If it was ‘tricky’ or complex then it was deferred to the next Board meeting. If it was still ‘tricky’ etc then it was put low on the agenda and the meeting run so there was no time to review the query. So the matter was put on hold to the next Board meeting and probably forgotten. If it was not then it was a case of “sorry missed that one but we have no time right now – people have planes to catch etc we will put it on the next agenda (in six months)”.

 

Is it not so easy to manipulate a legal honorary body but only address what the controllers wish to so address?

 

No, I do not believe there is any conspiracy running at the moment. But I am convinced that our movement is suffering from compliance with what is seen to be ‘the way to do it’ because that has been going on for eleven years and that is a long time!

 

We are seeing the results, because out of control management and lack of member involvement is now changing the situation quite remarkably. Got to have a computer to get an Ops Manual, cannot put a simple cheap ad in the RAAus mag, cannot get answers (not just replies) from the Board – and so on!

 

At present we need firm lateral thinking and courage on the part of the Board Executive. We need much better quality of management. Probably above all we need much more member involvement because our member skills can be most usefully employed at low or zero cost if adequately managed. We need to correct this ‘pony club committee’ mentality by key Board members being elected on professional merits and backed up by representatives of the Regions who are sent to Board Meetings by the Regions with specific Ops and Airworthiness concerns to address.

 

You may then see some progress - and involvement from the membership that the Board berate for not being even interested enough to vote for. Who the hell cares - if you do not get representation?

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

 

(moderated - reason: language, defamatiory content - Ian)

 

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There's lots that's been kept secret, like for example the magazine losing $93,000 in the first year that it hit the news stands. This is nothing new!

 

 

[Yenn]

The idea of us getting together to get things done appeals to me, but I don't know what others consider needs to be done.

 

To get my assistance you will have to give me your side of the argument and all relevant info. Then I will assess the matter and if I think it warrants my doing something, I will act.

 

That is what I would expect anyone to do, so if you have a problem, let us all know.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Yenn. Mate, it would help considerably if you stated who you were addressing our query to - there have been several subscribers to this thread

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

Is Yenn (Ian Borg) a board member ? I couldnt see him listed on the RAA site

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi All,

 

Bilby 54 sent me a copy of his memo. I did acknowledge and I brought the matter up at the February board meeting.

 

First I am a new board member here and I don't know all the background on this matter. What I did find out in February was the trial Mobile Training School was a dismal failure. and caused our association a lot of grief. The file of complaints (from abandoned students and suppliers) is enormous.

 

Second. You can't buy or sell the "essence" of a flying school. You can only buy or sell the assets. Mr bilby 54 can buy the assets of a school but then he has to get approval and have an approved CFI to run it. The "essence" of the school is an approved CFI. You can't "buy" a CFI rating.

 

Flying schools must be inspected and approved by the Ops. Manager. The board has nothing to do with it. The only way you could "sort of" buy a flying school is to buy an operating business and the CFI stays with the business and now works for you. By the same token you could own a very successful flying school, but if the CFI walks out, or falls under a bus, that is the end of your school until you can find a new approved CFI.

 

Thirdly. Competition is not an issue. The board policy is "mobile schools" of sorts are allowed but are called "satellite schools" In other words the flying school must have a fixed base. This way any aggrieved student or supplier has an address to make a complaint, or to visit. There is nothing stopping Mr bilby54 from setting up a flying school at Dalby, getting inspected and approved to operate as an RA-Aus flying school by the Ops Mgr. and then getting approval to run a satellite school at some other location.

 

Fourthly, This matter is the responsibility of the Ops Manager. If the rules are followed and there is still an issue then it becomes a board matter.

 

I hope this helps

 

John McKeown

 

PS I publish my mobile and home number. Ring me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

Firstly, I dont have any interest in this venture.

 

But it 'does' sould like Mr. bilby54 is being dissadvantaged by the fact the first operator was a rogue or somewhat similar by your own description. This shouldnt be weighted against him. Bradley

 

 

[JohnMcK]

" Got to have a computer to get an Ops Manual, cannot put a simple cheap ad in the RAAus mag, cannot get answers (not just replies) from the Board – and so on!"

 

 

 

Tony, You will get a hard copy as will every flying school and any "hardship case". Any one else can buy a copy at cost. The board believed most pilots these days have access to a computer and the enormous amount of money to send out everyone a hard copy was better spent elsewhere.

 

 

 

I agree with you about the adverts. I didn't agree to the changes at the last meeting and I will try my best at the next meeting to get some compromise.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John McKeown

 

 

 

[motzartmerv]

JohnMck.. I trained (for 3 flights) under the old operator and i kissed the ground after each flight..That being said i still believe the idea of the mobile school is a good one and one that many rural aussies could uttalise.. Im starting to see why Billb54 is having difficulty, you said you didn't know a great deal about the case but "What I did find out in February was the trial Mobile Training School was a dismal failure. and caused our association a lot of grief. The file of complaints (from abandoned students and suppliers) is enormous.".. Now, that to my limited understanding sounds like the school was run by a dodgy operator, cfi or not, he was allowed to continue along his distructive path as these "complaints" added up.. What im getting at is that if a board member is involved with discussions as to the viability of the mobile school and ends up with statements like the quote above, what hope does any new operator have of getting a foot in the door when as a basis for descisions made the board uses the track record of the dodgy CFI??.. My point is this, don't throw out the baby with the bath water..The problem was the guy running the show, not the show itself..

 

My 2 cents

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

" I agree with you about the adverts. I didn't agree to the changes at the last meeting and I will try my best at the next meeting to get some compromise.

 

Cheers,

 

John McKeown

What does this mean about advertising ?

 

 

[Seal]

True, the reputation of the previous operator may make some people less keen on the whole idea but the critical question is yet to be answered. Bilby may have bought the assets of a flying school, some equipment, perhaps an aeroplane, maybe even some goodwill but, unless he is a CFI or has employed one, all he has are some things that might be nice to look at. He sure does not have a flying school and nobody can give him the authority to operate one.

 

Sad but true.

 

 

[Admin]

Admin Comment

 

The statements that are being made in some of the posts in this thread are breaching on defamation and thus putting myself in jeopardy of legal action being brought against me. Whilst the administration of these forums do deny liability of the content of user's posts I would not like this to be challenged in a court of law - tying up both my time and money.

 

With this being said I would like to comment on the situation of the "mobile school" - being the basic subject of this thread.

 

The "mobile school" that was in place and subsequently sold was a "trial school" sanctioned by the RA-Aus board at that time. I believe it was documented and spelled out that it was only a trial and subject to a subsequent review as to its viability by the RA-Aus board at a later time.

 

The school was subsequently sold and whether there was any misrepresentation by the existing operator that it was in fact ONLY A TRIAL or lack of due diligence being undertaken by the new operator is a matter that can not be discussed here.

 

The trial was found by the RA-Aus board as not being successful due to discontented students which resulted in the RA-Aus board at the time ending the Trial.

 

When the rules on satellite schools changed I can't comment on or whether they were a result of the trial but the rules do currently state that:

 

1. An operator can commence a flight training facility in any location providing it is authorised to do so by the RA-Aus Operations Manager at the time.

 

2. To commence a flight training facility the facility must have a CFI and other requirements such as a room with adequate seating for briefings, appropriate aircraft models so as to demonstrate control surfaces etc.

 

3. Before a flight training facility can commence the current RA-Aus Operations Manager will visit the flight training facility to inspect that all requirements have been met.

 

4. The flight training facility CAN OPEN a Satellite School up to a maximum of 200 miles from the flight training facility

 

5. The Satellite School also needs to be approved by the current RA-Aus Operations Manager

 

6. For further information please refer to section 3.01 - 2 of the current AUF (RA-Aus) operations manual

 

I also understand that members may be discontented with the results of enquiries made to the RA-Aus board or their local representative but making comment on them here in a manner that "points a finger" must be considered by the moderators in the same context as one forum member pointing a finger on another forum member however, there will always be subject matter that IS of interest to all forum members. With this in mind I do very much sincerely request that you very carefully word your posts to a point of interest then to a point of blame. Whilst we do have some board members here at the forums and to them I am very much appreciative of their comment, but not all board members are members of this forum and therefore do not have a "right of reply" as do any other non forum member.

 

I would finally like to add that any forum member that has posted in this thread would like to review their post and make suitable edits, it would be very much appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[JohnMcK]

"There's lots that's been kept secret, like for example the magazine losing $93,000 in the first year that it hit the news stands. This is nothing new!"

 

Hi Brentc,

 

This is off topic, but A little bit of clarification here.

 

First I wasn't involved at the time, but I can't find out where you got the $93,000 from. From my checking I can only find out that when the decision was made to go to the newsagents it was going to cost us about $5,000 dollars a month up front, but you need to add back in the money that came back in from G&G from news stand sales. The board was aware that that the first year or so would run at a loss, but we currently make a profit on sales of the magazine to the public through the newsagents. The exact amount will be in our audited accounts presented at the AGM

 

The Board at the time this decision was made had the aim to lift our image in the public arena, and the decision was made on promotional grounds. It could be argued that our steep climb in membership has perhaps come about in a small way due to our promotion through the newsagents. It is of interest that other aviation associations are now following us down this path.

 

Cheers,

 

John McKeown

 

 

[bilby54]

Thanks for the moderating comments Ian,

 

I said in my first post that I did not want this to become a mud slinging exercise against the RAAus but was concerned with how some of the posts had progressed. I wanted to know how members had been treated when they contacted the board or RAAus management with a request and I gave my case as an example.

 

That is an interesting comment that you made about the MFTF being a trial as I had not heard that before and I have had a very indepth association with the subject. I was very unhappy with the way a previous ops manager treated me and said that it was a board decision not to allow the school to continue in new hands. The post by JohnMck said

 

Quote

 

"Fourthly, This matter is the responsibility of the Ops Manager. If the rules are followed and there is still an issue then it becomes a board matter."

 

and this was the whole point of my post; the twoing and frowing between the board and the managers that causes great frustration for members.

 

I would like to correct one thing in closing; I emailed every board member with the same request and I only received one reply from a Victorian based member and I appreciated that.

 

I hope this does encroach on defamation as it is an area that needs to be sorted by the RAAus.

 

Bill Bendall

 

Roma, Qld

 

 

[Guest airsick]

If someone discusses their experiences such as, "I contacted someone and they have ignored my queries thus far", this is not defamatory (or more technically correct - it is not libel). If what they are saying is based on factual information then it cannot be considered as libel. Similarly, if someone expresses an opinion this is also not libellous. Two important points to remember though. First, is the fact verifiable? Second, context.

 

If someone says something that is 100 per cent true yet it is not verifiable then it may be hard to defend. In the instance of a forum such as this it may be useful to link to some supporting documentation - a news story, a court case, scanned copies of correspondence (although sometimes these can be doctored and therefore questionable as well), etc. If the supporting document isn't readily available then it might be best to simply keep your mouth shut. Alternatively Ian and his crew might choose to remove the post as alluded to above.

 

Context is a little trickier. If you think the RA-Aus fees are excessive and write something along the lines of, "my opinion is that RA-Aus are a bunch of cowboys and they are taking people for a ride", then it is quite clear that this is opinion and as much as RA-Aus likes or dislikes it they cannot do anything about it. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, good, bad or otherwise. But if you write something like, "RA-Aus are a bunch of cowboys and are taking people for a ride" then this could be very easily considered as libel. The key difference is that the latter could be construed as offering an opinion as fact.

 

So you see, you can get your point across in a suitable way if you word it correctly. But I think Ian, being the person that will be held liable, is correct in saying, "if you don't do it right then don't do it at all or I will undo it for you."

 

PS. I don't think RA-Aus are cowboys!

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi bilby54,

 

I don't know all the background on this matter, but it did concern me that you were not getting replies to your questions from the RA-Aus. I made some phone calls this morning and was informed you were told verbally and in writing the status of the mobile flying school way back in 2005 and advised that it was a one off "Trial School" and NO transfer or new approval would be given.

 

In fact Paul Middelton wrote a detailed letter on this matter to your legal council on 20/09/2005.

 

Extract of letter to your legal council (D,K & K Solicitors) 20/09/2005

 

"So to answer your questions:

 

1. Was it transferable? No it was a one off trial to Mr X. (JMcK deletion of name) lt never received a formal approval as a school: as such it was not transferable. ............"

 

Another extract from the same letter.

 

"Mobile schools by their nature create more difficulties than the good that they do. When the

 

student pool starts to run dry the mobile school moves on leaving half-trained students who

 

become disillusioned and bring our movement into disrepute. On the other hand our fixed base

 

schools become hubs for both training of students and education of existing pilots. They also

 

provide a social meeting place for our members. Mr X (JMcK name removal) trial has taught us a lot!"

 

Bill, it appears you have been "done" but not by the RA-Aus.

 

Being from a large state I can see the need for for some form of mobile school, but I realize we live in the real world and life is not always fair, and unfortunately, for better or worse, the old statement "Once bitten, twice shy" applies here. Ring me if you have sensitive issues that can't be brought up here.

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Airsick

 

A point of example:

 

Person A posts: I have been emailing John Smith for the last 2 weeks but he doesn't return my emails

 

Person B posts: That is not very good of John Smith being a board member - if board members don't reply then what good is it having board members

 

Person C posts: Thanks for letting us know and I would agree that this is not very good of our organisation

 

- all this happens within minutes on a live forum like this

 

meanwhile, John Smith, who is NOT a member of this forum, is at his airfield complaining to a friend that his PC broke down 2 weeks ago and it still isn't fixed...hmmm

 

 

[Guest brentc]

John, I was given those figures by the executive quite some time ago. I believe the figure is correct and if not, I stand to be corrected. I'm of the firm belief that they are correct however it was supposedly to be rectified by some further dealings.

 

Either way, it's a lot of money.