I kid you not revisited

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Aircraft 1 – the mag advertising issue is very simple. Last year all the small advertisers were given a flat statement – convert your black and white advert to full colour and pay considerably more for colour – or no longer advertise.

 

What RAAus/Zebra Publishing were doing was enhancing the newsstands ‘glossy image’ of the movements official organ of communication and having the advertisers (and by consequence the members) pay for it.

 

In my personal situation (and that of many others) we had no use for colour as we were just displaying a simple list of services. Neither were we able to afford any price hikes as we were operating at about break-even to provide various low cost services to members.

 

John’s statement that he wants the matter reviewed is encouraging.

 

However - back to topic:

 

John McK. Thank you sincerely for your continued contributions John, it really is good to have some direct input from a Board Member. However, while I do not disagree with the detail of what you have to say, it is slightly sidetracking main issues – principally via the CFI bit. Let us see if we can get back on track a bit.

 

• The CFI is only one component of the standing requirements for an FTF. These ALL have to be present for the school to operate. They are listed in the Ops Manual.
   
   
  
• You CAN buy a CFI if the new owner does not meet the criteria, When I sold my school part of the deal was that I would stay on until I had trained the new owner up to CFI level. So he bought a fully functioning school with all the components intact.
   
   
  
• CFI is an ‘approval’ NOT a rating. It took me years of lobbying AUF to get that one clarified. It was greatly necessary as it gave AUF far more standards control if a CFI turned out to be a dud. It is far easier to withdraw an approval than it is to remove a rating.
   
   
  
• The CFI situation did not anyway apply in Bill’s case. He was a Senior Instructor and had the minima for CFI Approval. All that was required was that he was examined for issue of the Approval so that he could operate his new business.
   
   
  
• The Mobile FTF was stopped not on CFI grounds but (and this was the time the term started being conveniently used) because “the ‘Trial’ had been deemed unsuccessful and was being discontinued”. This is a bunch of horse crap! The ‘Trial’ had actually been running for over 16 years!
   
   
  
• The circumstances suggest that RAAus took an ‘expedient’ way of getting rid of a thorn in their side that they had lacked the management ability or courage to do before. They did so at the direct financial loss to a member who had purchased in good faith because the Mobile FTF at that time WAS an approved RAAus facility. There is no point in coming out with spurious comment on assumed detail of its components at the point of sale – this is not rocket science nor multinational legal issues – it is simple recreational flying that we have to control ourselves very simply. Let us examine that a bit more!
   
   
  
• John, I have to disagree with your statement that appointments are the Ops Manager’s responsibility and no business of the Board. The Board does have ultimate responsibility for ANY decision made by the hired help! In fact appointments of (for example) Pilot Examiners (in my direct experience) are primarily politically based and are individually sanctioned by the Board.
   
   
  
• As you yourself have stated – this mobile FTF caused a great deal of grief and this was known to AUF/RAAus for many years. Why did not the Board step in and haul the Ops Manager into line and have him stop the issue at source – particularly as it was only a ‘Trial’?
   
   
  
• The only real people to suffer were our members – that the Board has a duty of care to protect! Ultimately it was Bill who really suffered when RAAus tugged the rug from under him after he had committed himself!
   
   
  
• Ultimately members will respond to situations on the belief that if an organisation, FTF, individual instructor/inspector etc is currently approved by RAAus then they have an acceptable standard that may be trusted. Preserving that faith convincingly is one of the main duties of care of the Board!
   
   
  
• In my opinion if the Board had convincing evidence that things are not right, take no action to correct them, and obscure from the membership that this situation existed – then they should be subject to scrutiny and answering why this is so! That could destroy our movement in just one court case – either financially or in credibility terms.
   
   
  
• The Mobile having a ‘home base’ is actually neither here nor there (it actually did have one). Any business has to have a central point where ultimately it can be served with notices and or legal action – so the public are ultimately protected.
   
   
  
• The actual facts of the Mobile FTF are as follows:
   
  

 

a. Irrespective of if it came into being as a ‘trial’ or not, it was allowed to continue for very many years and that gave it considerable credibility in the eyes of beholders – at least in terms of its accepted establishment.

 

b. The successive Operations Manuals gave provision for a mobile FTF.

 

c. At the point of sale the FTF was ‘legal’ in terms of having approvals in place, fully complied with the principle of FTF requirements etc.

 

d. The new owner was a Senior Instructor with no ‘ticks’ against him and could have been authorised as CFI and gone for it.

 

e. Once committed, the new owner was denied continuance of the FTF by the Operations Manager. This was done by resurrecting a many years old “trial” concept as an expedient reason. I personally think that stinks!

 

f. The Operations Manager (in my opinion) exceeded his authority by going against provisions in the Ops Manual. If he did not do so, but involved the Board or Executive in the decision – then the Board is directly responsible!

 

On the other side of the coin are a number of factors. The main one is that ‘ultralighting’ must establish credence with it’s peers. That has been happening for quite some time.

 

It must also preserve and reinforce belief in its membership that our structure and representation is actually doing the job because other eyes are watching us closely and they carry a bigger stick than ourselves!

 

But on topic, the Mobile FTF concept was brilliant – in the right hands – and there should not be just one but more of them! So often our movement is brought down at the hands of ‘cowboys’. The Mobile can take standards and service to the remote areas (that no satellite school could ever do) get us more members and provide so much needed support with the principles of the organisation, service facilities, and just simple contact!

 

The concept appears to have been junked, at an opportune moment, by people who neither can pick up that challenge nor are interested in a movement that is truly National but have steadily built themselves on centralisation without CASA’s public purse to do so.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

I support you 110% in the mobile school concept, i think it's a good idea and this trial stuff is RUBBISH, i did a few flights and the owner had a meeting room, models, white board, locking cabinets and other requirements met. His plane was a bit rough and needed some TLC but i always found the person to act professianally and responsably. I didnt do all my training with him because of his location but i do know 3 people trained by him and all 3 are still alive AND flying.

 

If somebody has purchased the school whilst it was 'approved' and management knew about it and then chose to close the "trial" then that is a disgrace 'in my opinion'

 

 

[Yenn]

No I am not a board member and have no desire to become one. the point I was trying to make was that if anyone has a gripe with RAAus, then the way to get it fixed if the initial approach to the board does not work is to let us all know what the problem is. We can assess for ourselves if the board is failing in it's duties and if necessary bring pressure to bear by our weight of numbers.

 

I don't believe it will do any good to whinge about any situation without stating the facts.

 

I was involved slightly with the court case of the original operator and when I asked our local rep why he hadn't been thrown out of RAAus I was told that the president didn't want to pursue the matter. I read into that, that he was intimidated by the legal problems. Having been dragged to Rocky for 3 days, waiting for 5 mins in court I would not want to tangle with the lawyers again.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There are certainly avenues for appeal.

 

If I'm not mistaken, RA-Aus has a constitution and in there is a grievance procedure for members to have an independent third party assigned (this can be another member) with no pre-conceived involvement to chair a grievance committee.

 

In Victoria this is administered through the Department of Justice. I don't think that ACT would be any different unless anyone knows?

 

RA-Aus is OUR organisation and is not a private company and as such the Committee and Board are answerable to the members.

 

I HIGHLY recommend this course of action if you want results!

 

If you are not satisfied with the way the issue has been delt you can approach the Department of Justice or their ACT equivalent, but only after the constitution has been followed and internal options are exhausted.

 

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me!

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

The following is slightly off topic but congruent with parts of posts that I have made.

 

 

I have been requested to post the following explanations and do so most willingly and under no duress whatsoever.

 

 

Point 1. Mike Valentine’s suicide. No inference or association should be taken regarding Mike’s suicide as in an way being connected with RAAus nor any of it’s employees.

 

 

Kay and I have Mike’s death letter in which he totally divorces his intended personal course of action from RAAus. He was dead within a few hours of mailing that letter.

 

 

Point 2. This involves the PMI scenario indicated in an earlier post. This will be a bit more laborious to detail.

 

 

Some time back AUF/RAAus introduced a requirement that flying instructor candidates underwent 30 hour of PMI (Principles & Methods of Instruction) training to go along with their 20 hours practical flying training.

 

 

It became mandatory for any existing Senior Instructors who could not demonstrate compliance to retrospectively having undertaken such a course.

 

 

Soon after, another edition of the Ops Manual came out that formalised this and required Senior Instructors to demonstrate compliance before renewal of the their ratings. But the new edition did not totally encompass the two year gap that would cover any existing Senior Instructor renewal and left a huge terminology gap in the wording.

 

 

One individual refused to comply and used the ‘gap’ as justification for his refusal. He came to me as a local Pilot Examiner to re-rate him.

 

 

I discussed the matter with the (then) Operations Manager and expressed my concern about (a) the hostile environment existing between the applicant and the organisation. (b) the indefensible wording of the requirement. © that the applicant was threatening legal action that I believed he would win if he did not get his rating renewed.

 

 

I negotiated between the two sides that I would verbally examine the candidate on PMI. Failing an approved course there was no other alternative under the wording of the Ops Manual and AUF/RAAus anyway had no written syllabus for PMI or any facet of Instructor Training – and still do not!

 

 

I was far from satisfied with the results of the examination. I will be totally open here – I passed the individual because he knew just enough to justify the pass but barely enough. But I primarily passed him because he had years of experience and no known operational instructional strikes against him. In comparison he may have been an instructional moron but was far ahead of the 200 hour wonders that I was regularly trying to counsel!

 

 

However, while my pass enabled him to retain his Senior Instructor rating, and consequentially his CFI and Pilot Examiner ratings, I drew the line at his Instructor Training rating. He was nowhere skilled, educated nor conversant enough on the PMI subject to teach much about anything to a new instructor. I therefore, with my PMI pass, advised the removal of the Instructor Training rating. I believed that had been done. Maybe it was not done on latest information?

 

 

(Note: For brevity – in my earlier posts I stated that ‘I had done this’ etc. But in real terms even a Pilot Examiner has no power to control, only provide recommendations. The ultimate decision is always in the hands of the Operations Manager based upon the information that is given)

 

 

As an aside I suffered for this. At the next Board Meeting (I was then a member of the Board) I was publicly called out to present a written syllabus of what I had applied to the individual and justify my actions. Charming – more than half the people in the room were not instructors, virtually all of them wanted his blood but would take no action against him, virtually none of them would have understood what I was talking about. All of them wanted to blame me for letting him go.

 

 

Such is the way of the world!

 

 

I promised to make this post and I keep my word. Sorry for being off-topic and probably boring you – but that is the way of my world!

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[John G]

Explaination and Acknowledgement

 

I have registered with this site for this one post and do not intend on posting again for reasons that I will outline later.

 

Most of you may not even be aware of the issues behind Tony’s post last night. Suffice to say that Tony had brought up a subject with an inference that could have been misinterpreted by some folk who may not have been aware of all the circumstances. John McKeown alerted me by sending me a copy of the post. I then contacted the Board Administrator citing my displeasure and Tony’s post was edited deleting the reference I was objecting to. I rang Tony last night to discuss the issues involved and we discussed our differing opinions and interpretations of some of the issues and he said he would make a follow on post to clear up any possible mis-understandings.

 

The only frame of reference that I can use when dealing with RA-Aus business is fact; and not someone’s opinion or hearsay. So when Tony raised the issue of the previous mobile school owner and his PMI achievement I checked the RA-Aus files to find that Tony had issued the PMI rating.

 

I accept Tony’s explanation and take my hat of to him for having the character to follow through. I would also like to thank Tony for his contribution to RA-Aus both as a board member PE and CFI in the past and his continuing contribution with the TOSG and day to day efforts of sharing his skills and knowledge unselfishly .

 

Now back to topic, Bilby54 was being somewhat disingenuous when claiming that RA-Aus had not responded to him. We have a file full of correspondence from the office to both him personally and his legal representative on the matter as well as numerous phone calls. In fact the last letter from the CEO was posted last Tuesday and the timing of his post may be as a result of not agreeing with the umpire’s decision or just a co-incidence in timing.

 

The latest approach from Bilby54 to the board was via email to all board members two days before the last board meeting at the end of February. Most board members would have been on route to Canberra and would not have received it prior to the meeting. In the normal course of events the issue would have been held over to the following board meeting to allow board members to ascertain the facts. I was in Canberra several days prior preparing for the meeting when I received the Email. I had the staff prepare a brief with all relevant documentation and tabled Bilby54’s email at the board meeting for discussion and resolution. The board was of the view that all proper documentation and procedures were followed by staff and re-affirmed the policy of no mobile schools. The CEO was then tasked to respond to Bilby54 informing him of the board’s resolution. The CEO was pre-occupied with higher priority tasks such NatFly preparations, Coronial Inquests and Fatal accidents that required him to be away from his desk. He did not respond to Bilby’s email until the 22nd April. Why didn’t I or other board members respond? On examining the file and correspondence it was clear that all the issues had been covered time and again and the CEO was tasked to respond on behalf of the board.

 

Within the constraints of policy set by the board, I believe that RA-Aus staff carried out their duties appropriately and responded to correspondence from both Bilby54 and his legal counsel over a period of several years. When the previous owner of the mobile school attempted to advertise the school for sale in the magazine he was informed in no uncertain terms that the school was non-transferable and that no further mobile schools would be approved due to board policy. The fact that he may have misrepresented the facts to a subsequent buyer is a legal matter for them. Had Bilby54 contacted the office during his due diligence prior to purchase he would have been informed that a mobile school would not be approved.

 

Now, for my reasons for not participating in this forum. I do not encourage staff or board members to participate on this forum, but leave it up to the individual to make their own decisions. We have seen from the foregoing that office and board member workload can be doubled and tripled if we responded to every beef that members on this forum have. Typically when an issue arises they contact the office where the staff work through the issue and if it can’t be solved at their level elevate it to the exec or the board. The board then discusses the matter if it needs a change in policy or re-iterates the policy and directs staff accordingly. What some members then do is raise the same issue on the forum because they did not like the response they got from the office but neglect to mention all the facts and in the process get other members riled up. Someone, perhaps another board member raises, the issue again with the staff who have to spend valuable time to give the complainant the same answer.

 

The other reason is time. As you all know being a board member is an honorary position and the business of looking after the interests of 9,000 members (8941 as of Friday) takes a lot of time. Board members put in whatever time they can and in many cases at great personal and monetary cost. They certainly do not appreciate armchair quarterbacks telling them how to run the organisation better if they themselves are not prepared to get off their butts to run for the board or even, in some instances, to vote. Does that give us a right to be arrogant? Certainly not, the ballot box is the greatest leveller of all as John Howard found out. I am just being realistic, here let’s say this forum has a membership of 300; should I spend 90% of my time answering the concerns of 3% of the membership? Or getting on and looking after the whole organisation and the current and strategic needs of all members.

 

We need to follow protocol and procedures otherwise we would end up in a shemozzle and your organisation cannot chop and change at the whim of 9,000 different wants and ideas. The established protocol of approaching staff for resolution of day to day issues is the way to go and if you believe that staff have treated you unfairly then raise the issue with your local board member who will take it to the exec for resolution or forwarding to the Board meeting for resolution. Likewise any ideas for change or suggestions for improvement should through your local board member for tabling and discussion at the next board meeting.

 

CASA administer 11,000 pilots, that includes all ATPL Commercial and PPL with a staff of 600. RA-Aus administers 9,000 members with a higher level of service than what CASA gives their customers with only TEN 10 staff. Think about that for a minute and you will see what I mean about time being valuable.

 

I just wish I could muster all the combined energy in these forums into a focussed response to Government on all the issues that we are currently dealing with at the political level. While we are focussed on small spot fires internally the raging bush fire occurring in Canberra could wipe us all out. I will post a preview copy of my next month’s magazine report as an example of the issues we should be focussing on.

 

As mentioned earlier, I do not intend on posting here in the future but am happy to receive direct emails if anyone has serious issues they want to discuss or resolve. The main reason for the post was to acknowledge Tony’s post and explain the background.

 

Let’s not forget why we are here; fly have FUN and share the passion.

 

Ian: I think it would be appropriate to delete this whole thread after a day or so after the folks that had an initial interest have had a read.

 

 

[John G]

Preview President's May Magazine Report

 

Political Directions and Prop Concerns

 

A lot of members may not realise the huge amount of time that Ra-Aus expends in the political arena, lobbying to ensure that our current members rights are not diluted or that unnecessary imposts are not placed on operation of RA-Aus aircraft.

 

Both Lee and I attend many CASA and industry meetings and seminars that take us away from the day to day provision of services to you, our members. Whilst in Lee’s case he would rather be in the office catching up on the million and one tasks that management of 9,000 odd members requires and I’d rather be attending to my own business and having fun flying. But if we weren’t present at the various meetings and forums we would have decisions made in our absence that could be detrimental to RA-Aus’s aspirations. Both of us see it as part of the job that you expect from us notwithstanding the frustrations that occur.

 

One of the biggest frustrations for us is the constant change of Ministers over the last few years, not to mention the recent change of government. During the last Government we had three different Ministers over a six year period. After spending many cumulative days lobbying and briefing the Minister and his staff, we would be back to square one once a new Minister was appointed and start the process all over again. That was a time consuming process that slowed up the implementation of policy. Now with a new Government and a new Minister there is no guarantee that undertakings given previously will be honoured. The only surety is that everyone is in the same boat.

 

Minister Albanese released his Aviation Policy statement in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago at a Transport and Tourism function. While RA-Aus was represented by Rod Birrell, our Victorian Board member, he was heavily out numbered by the big end of town such as Qantas, Virgin Blue and the other big players in the aviation industry.

 

The reality of the situation is that the commercial airlines have all the economic power and are the ones that demand and get the ear of government. Whilst numerically, RA-Aus administered aircraft outnumber the total number of aircraft in the Australian commercial fleet and the RAAF, in reality we come fairly low on the totem pole in terms of getting equity and access to the Minister and Government. In announcing the policy, the Minister has called for input from all to go into a green paper for discussion which will be the basis of a white paper policy document. This will form the basis of the Government’s Aviation Policy for years into the future.

 

The web link for information and input is: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap

 

I urge all members to contribute submissions into the green paper. Obviously, the RAAus office will be making a submission on behalf of the members, but the more submissions received, the more likely we are will get our case heard.

 

CASA quite rightly has enunciated a policy that their main resources will be directed at the “fare paying passenger†and we have no quibble with that as long as our members can go about their business flying and sharing the airspace responsibly.

 

What we have to be concerned about is if Government Policy only looks at solutions that satisfy the big end of town, we may lose some of the freedoms we enjoy today. It would be akin to the government making rules and regulations that give priority to trucks and busses on the highways and tollways and excludes private cars. Not as far fetched as you may think. There is already a move afoot to have all airports with have any commercial traffic being declared a CTAF( R ) where aircraft without radios would be barred from over 80% of existing airfields. Air Services are pushing for the mandatory fitment of ADSB to all aircraft that wish to operate into CTAF( R ), citing a bogus safety based case. When in fact, all they are about is to increase is their revenue base and this without spending their own money on primary radars in C airspace as directed by the previous Government.

 

As a minimum RA-Aus will be calling for equal and equitable access to airspace for all users without the imposition of onerous costs that would stifle the current vibrancy in the recreational sector. I urge all members to make a submission or you may find yourself grounded in years to come. Don’t let the Aussie apathy be responsible for you grounding yourself because of a lack of action.

 

Changing gears (props) now. You should all be aware that if you fly a factory built certified aircraft no changes are allowed to the manufacturer’s parts and specifications. In other words if it came with “x†brand prop with “y†pitch that is what you have to replace it with; even if Bill tells you that “z†brand with a “s†pitch would make your aircraft climb and cruise faster. We have had many representations from owners saying that their original prop only gives marginal performance and fitment of a “z†brand would enhance safety. Unfortunately CASA make the rules, we only administer them, and in CASA’s view the only way anything can be changed on a certified aircraft is to have a CAR 35 engineer draw up the paperwork and approve the mod for that specific airframe.

 

Obviously, RA-Aus would be remiss if we did not try to find a solution for our members who wish to deviate from manufacturer’s specifications on perceived safety grounds. We have been working with CASA to find a solution, but unless the manufacturer is willing to re-certify the aircraft with a new prop, the CAR 35 route is the only way to go if you want to maintain the certification status. CASA has presented us with an option where the owner may take the aircraft out of certified status and place it in the experimental category (19 prefix) and play around with the airframe to their hearts’ content with no comeback at CASA or the manufacturer. What is not clear is whether the aircraft could ever return to the certified category with may result in lessening the resale value.

 

RA-Aus only permits certified aircraft to be used in our Flight Training Schools and therefore school aircraft must not be modified in any way from that which was certified by the factory. We will be continuing to try and find solutions to the propeller question for our members when and if other avenues become available. But in the meantime you have been warned; it’s not us you will be dealing with, but CASA if someone dobs you in for using an illegal prop on a certified aircraft.

 

Have FUN flying safe and legally!

 

 

[Admin]

Admin Comment

 

Thankyou to ALL

 

Thread is now closed!

 

If you feel you have a very pertinent response that should be added please PM me