RAA HQ - legal issues and claims

[johnm]

On another thread - see case 1 below (and others) - you read comments that RAA have various legal issues and claims

 

I am personally unaware of such matters other than reading case 1 below ......................

 

Is it possible that we can have a rough idea of the circumstance - either:

 

- a description of the issue and being vague of the incident

- a description of the incident and being vague of the issue

- etc

 

can we discuss these various matters (probably vaguely)

 

Case in point: case 1 - https://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/topic/38545-small-plane-missing-victoria-180922/page/8/

[jackc]

In actual fact RAAus are in breach of the Constitution because They have not involved members or shareholders by updating them via a communiqué relating to the current progress of the legal action under discussion at this time.

I was given this information via a phone call from a person who has intense knowledge on the subject.

[jackc]

I received this information today. I think maybe th members need to consider a Special General meeting of RAAus in light of this.

Suggest IF you want further information please call the writer.

RAAus future is at stake here…

 

There is an urgent matter that all RAAus pilots and aircraft owners need to consider. If left unresolved this issue will adversely impact your right to fly light sport aircraft.

 

 

CORONERS INQUEST Final Report - Jabiru Accident Mount Beauty. 

 

In his report the Coroner, Paul Lawrie, has recommended legal action be taken against RAAus. He has referred this matter for prosecution to the Department of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. 

 

The key matter has been the stated issue of a pilot certificate and endorsements without adequate pilot training by RAAus and the withholding of information that should have been released to the Coroner.

 

The responsible RAAus officers in this matter, previous Operations Manager Ms J.Bailey and the RAAus Chairman Mr M.Monk. 

 

Over the last 40 years of RAAus’s existence we have never had such such an adverse report made against our organisation. 

 

It is estimated over $300,000+ of member's money, that is your money, has already been spent on legal and associated costs by RAAus.The losses continue to accumulate. Unfortunately there is no end in sight for the actual and planned legal proceedings being taken against RAAus.

 

RAAus will become insolvent if current and future legal claims made against it are successful. 

 

Despite the obvious need to do so the Coroner's report has not been published by RAAus for its members. Even a link to the Coroner's report in a RAAus newsletter has not been made available. I believe most would see this is an attempt to keep the report a secret. 

 

So why does this report matter to you? RAAus may have its licensing approvals suspended or terminated by CASA. Control of sport aviation may be handed back to CASA. Your flying privileges may be adversely affected should this occur. 

 

So what can any RAAus member do about this catastrophe?

 

Firstly please consider the serious issues that now confront RAAus. Please also forward the Coroners report and the Australian Aviation Magazine article on to other interested RAAus members.  If enough RAAus members chose to be informed and be involved in we will be able to effect change. 

 

You can have your voice heard by supporting common sense reform of RAAus and how it operates.

 

Please see this as a call to action, let me know by return email if you are prepared to let you voice be heard. What is needed is sufficient RAAus members calling for action to resolve the significant problems we are now facing.

 

The Coroners report and Australia Aviation article have been enclosed as PDF copies to download ….

 

Regards

 

Rodney Birrell

 

Save the RAAus team.

RAAus member #35

 

0422-446622

 

Victorian Coroners Inquest Report - Jabiru Aircraft Accident Mt Beauty, Victoria

[Thruster88]

I think it is a FACT that no member of RAAus individually or in a group will be able to change any legal process that might happen. Life and sport&recreational flying will go on in one form or another. I have two CASA and two RAAus regulated aircraft, not concerned about RAAus future. We could be like New Zealand, just one regulator. 

[jackc]

From what I know CASA has this whole fiasco on its radar, probably time will tell.

We will always be flying, but the game may change?

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

I received this information today. I think maybe th members need to consider a Special General meeting of RAAus in light of this.

Suggest IF you want further information please call the writer.

RAAus future is at stake here…

 

There is an urgent matter that all RAAus pilots and aircraft owners need to consider. If left unresolved this issue will adversely impact your right to fly light sport aircraft.

 

 

CORONERS INQUEST Final Report - Jabiru Accident Mount Beauty. 

 

In his report the Coroner, Paul Lawrie, has recommended legal action be taken against RAAus. He has referred this matter for prosecution to the Department of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. 

 

The key matter has been the stated issue of a pilot certificate and endorsements without adequate pilot training by RAAus and the withholding of information that should have been released to the Coroner.

 

The responsible RAAus officers in this matter, previous Operations Manager Ms J.Bailey and the RAAus Chairman Mr M.Monk. 

 

Over the last 40 years of RAAus’s existence we have never had such such an adverse report made against our organisation. 

 

It is estimated over $300,000+ of member's money, that is your money, has already been spent on legal and associated costs by RAAus.The losses continue to accumulate. Unfortunately there is no end in sight for the actual and planned legal proceedings being taken against RAAus.

 

RAAus will become insolvent if current and future legal claims made against it are successful. 

 

Despite the obvious need to do so the Coroner's report has not been published by RAAus for its members. Even a link to the Coroner's report in a RAAus newsletter has not been made available. I believe most would see this is an attempt to keep the report a secret. 

 

So why does this report matter to you? RAAus may have its licensing approvals suspended or terminated by CASA. Control of sport aviation may be handed back to CASA. Your flying privileges may be adversely affected should this occur. 

 

So what can any RAAus member do about this catastrophe?

 

Firstly please consider the serious issues that now confront RAAus. Please also forward the Coroners report and the Australian Aviation Magazine article on to other interested RAAus members.  If enough RAAus members chose to be informed and be involved in we will be able to effect change. 

 

You can have your voice heard by supporting common sense reform of RAAus and how it operates.

 

Please see this as a call to action, let me know by return email if you are prepared to let you voice be heard. What is needed is sufficient RAAus members calling for action to resolve the significant problems we are now facing.

 

The Coroners report and Australia Aviation article have been enclosed as PDF copies to download ….

 

Regards

 

Rodney Birrell

 

Save the RAAus team.

RAAus member #35

 

0422-446622

 

Victorian Coroners Inquest Report - Jabiru Aircraft Accident Mt Beauty, Victoria

You probably should have stopped the change to RAA Ltd.

There may be plenty of difficulties getting inside RAA Ltd from the outside.

A Special General Meeting (if allowed under the RAA Ltd Constitution) will be a different animal to an SGM under the Incorporated Association ACT Legislation, so I'd start looking at that aspect first.

 

Also, in terms of dollars, what the Coroner/DPP do will be quite different to what a Public Liability Lawyer might do, so it would be smart to get some advice before rushing in.

 

 

Edited Monday at 08:02 AM by turboplanner

[Keith Page]

4 hours ago, jackc said:

I received this information today. I think maybe th members need to consider a Special General meeting of RAAus in light of this.

Suggest IF you want further information please call the writer.

RAAus future is at stake here…

 

There is an urgent matter that all RAAus pilots and aircraft owners need to consider. If left unresolved this issue will adversely impact your right to fly light sport aircraft.

 

 

CORONERS INQUEST Final Report - Jabiru Accident Mount Beauty. 

 

In his report the Coroner, Paul Lawrie, has recommended legal action be taken against RAAus. He has referred this matter for prosecution to the Department of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. 

 

The key matter has been the stated issue of a pilot certificate and endorsements without adequate pilot training by RAAus and the withholding of information that should have been released to the Coroner.

 

The responsible RAAus officers in this matter, previous Operations Manager Ms J.Bailey and the RAAus Chairman Mr M.Monk. 

 

Over the last 40 years of RAAus’s existence we have never had such such an adverse report made against our organisation. 

 

It is estimated over $300,000+ of member's money, that is your money, has already been spent on legal and associated costs by RAAus.The losses continue to accumulate. Unfortunately there is no end in sight for the actual and planned legal proceedings being taken against RAAus.

 

RAAus will become insolvent if current and future legal claims made against it are successful. 

 

Despite the obvious need to do so the Coroner's report has not been published by RAAus for its members. Even a link to the Coroner's report in a RAAus newsletter has not been made available. I believe most would see this is an attempt to keep the report a secret. 

 

So why does this report matter to you? RAAus may have its licensing approvals suspended or terminated by CASA. Control of sport aviation may be handed back to CASA. Your flying privileges may be adversely affected should this occur. 

 

So what can any RAAus member do about this catastrophe?

 

Firstly please consider the serious issues that now confront RAAus. Please also forward the Coroners report and the Australian Aviation Magazine article on to other interested RAAus members.  If enough RAAus members chose to be informed and be involved in we will be able to effect change. 

 

You can have your voice heard by supporting common sense reform of RAAus and how it operates.

 

Please see this as a call to action, let me know by return email if you are prepared to let you voice be heard. What is needed is sufficient RAAus members calling for action to resolve the significant problems we are now facing.

 

The Coroners report and Australia Aviation article have been enclosed as PDF copies to download ….

 

Regards

 

Rodney Birrell

 

Save the RAAus team.

RAAus member #35

 

0422-446622

 

Victorian Coroners Inquest Report - Jabiru Aircraft Accident Mt Beauty, Victoria

I can remember clearly a few years ago  there was so much noise regarding poor management of RAAus and how useless the board was…..things were pretty good them BUT now this current mob of managers have let this dilemma get to the point of destruction for RAAus. So we all can sit back and watch the show go broke and disintegrate. The other issue this current gang is out and about closing schools so how will flying expand with no schools.

[Keith Page]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You probably should have stopped the change to RAA Ltd.

There may be plenty of difficulties getting inside RAA Ltd from the outside.

A Special General Meeting (if allowed under the RAA Ltd Constitution) will be a different animal to an SGM under the Incorporated Association ACT Legislation, so I'd start looking at that aspect first.

 

Also, in terms of dollars, what the Coroner/DPP do will be quite different to what a Public Liability Lawyer might do, so it would be smart to get some advice before rushing in.

 

 

Quite simple the law has been broken and those who broke the law need to be punished and public liability cover will not cover deviant behaviour.

[onetrack]

That's a bit of a cocksure statement, Keith. No-one in RAA Ltd has been found guilty of any law-breaking, yet - that will be after any criminal charges are laid, and after a trial is held, and the offender/s is/are found guilty.

The DPP has to be sure of securing a conviction before they will press charges. Some people thought the Ball Bay crash pilot would almost certainly be found guilty of manslaughter - but the charge was dropped due to no certainty of securing a conviction.

I'd suggest the fact that the pax in the Ball Bay crash went for a ride accepting the statement on the instrument panel that experimental aircraft are not built to the same standard as certified aircraft - and passengers accept the increased risk accordingly - had something to do with the Crown being very doubtful of securing a conviction in that case. At the end of the day, the Crown must prove criminal actions or intent, to secure a conviction.

 

In the case of RAA Ltd, Public Liability covers negligence of the insured party, that leads to loss or losses - but it doesn't cover criminal activity resulting in loss or losses. The $64 question is, whether there was simply negligence on the part of the RAA Ltd employees/managers in this Matt Farrell case, or if criminal intent and actions were involved. Passing judgement before any police investigation occurs, or charges are laid, and defendants found guilty, is quite premature, IMO.

[Moneybox]

I hate the way our legal system had degraded the the point where somebody must always be held accountable for a mistake made by an individual.

 

(An inquest into the death of a recreational pilot whose Jabiru plane crashed in the Victorian high country has heard that, at the time, other pilots on the ground considered the weather poor.)

 

I think it's clear that other more experienced pilots voiced their opinion that it was too risky to fly in that weather. This pilot chose to take a risk and tragically died due to his own decisions. I'm not saying that improvements shouldn't be recommended and implemented but do we have to have a bunch of get-rich-quick legal vultures involved?  

 

[onetrack]

Moneybox, it's called "Duty of Care" and the concept has always been in our law statutes, but its principles were broadened in a trial held in 1932 (Donoghue v Stevenson).

In essence, the RAA Ltd issue is not so much whether Matt Farrell should have flown that day, it's about whether RAA Ltd was criminally negligent in issuing an RPC to a pilot with reportedly inadequate training and flight hours.

The individuals in RAA Ltd made the erroneous decision that flight hours in a paraglider could be counted towards the issuance of an RPC.

The interpretation by RAA Ltd people of the aviation rules in this area has to be determined as to whether it was either simple misinterpretation, or criminal negligence, that led to an inexperienced and aggressively overconfident pilot killing himself.

I don't believe the issue is as clear cut as some suppose, and it takes a lot of argument and dissection of defendants and witnesses statements in court, to determine the truth behind the actions of RAA Ltd in issuing the RPC - and finding accordingly, whether criminality was involved or not, by either one or more persons in RAA Ltd.

Naturally, there will be plenty of sharp lawyers out there willing to take the case on, if the DPP determine that a charge, or charges, of criminality against RAA Ltd employees can be sustained.

 

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/donoghue-v-stevenson.php

[Keith Page]

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

That's a bit of a cocksure statement, Keith. No-one in RAA Ltd has been found guilty of any law-breaking, yet - that will be after any criminal charges are laid, and after a trial is held, and the offender/s is/are found guilty.

The DPP has to be sure of securing a conviction before they will press charges. Some people thought the Ball Bay crash pilot would almost certainly be found guilty of manslaughter - but the charge was dropped due to no certainty of securing a conviction.

I'd suggest the fact that the pax in the Ball Bay crash went for a ride accepting the statement on the instrument panel that experimental aircraft are not built to the same standard as certified aircraft - and passengers accept the increased risk accordingly - had something to do with the Crown being very doubtful of securing a conviction in that case. At the end of the day, the Crown must prove criminal actions or intent, to secure a conviction.

 

In the case of RAA Ltd, Public Liability covers negligence of the insured party, that leads to loss or losses - but it doesn't cover criminal activity resulting in loss or losses. The $64 question is, whether there was simply negligence on the part of the RAA Ltd employees/managers in this Matt Farrell case, or if criminal intent and actions were involved. Passing judgement before any police investigation occurs, or charges are laid, and defendants found guilty, is quite premature, IMO.

I a court of law, If you and I lie by the fact of omission we know the outcome. Simple — we can not omit what know to alter on outcome.

[BurnieM]

A few points;

 - does CASA really want control and managing 10,000 pilots and 3,000 planes back ? Control probably yes, management workload probably no.

- if criminal actions against RAAus or its officers are successful then insurance may be void. This is probably not what his girlfriend wants if she brings a civil action against RAAus.

- any civil damage award may be reduced by his partial liability (poor decision making) and his girlfriends partial liability ie being too scared to fly with him and her PPL training meaning she knew or should have known she was required to report him to CASA which did not occur.

 

So we are left with does the cost of legal action and any damages bankrupt RAAus.

This is the real risk which may take 5 years plus to play out.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:03 PM by BurnieM

[T510]

I have noticed I'm getting Maurice Blackburn ads about the Matt Farrell case on social media.

 

Seems like the ambulance chasing lawyers have aviation in their sights

[jackc]

3 hours ago, BurnieM said:

A few points;

 - does CASA really want control and managing 10,000 pilots and 3,000 planes back ? Control probably yes, management workload probably no.

- if criminal actions against RAAus or its officers are successful then insurance may be void. This is probably not what his girlfriend wants if she brings a civil action against RAAus.

- any civil damage award may be reduced by his partial liability (poor decision making) and his girlfriends partial liability ie being too scared to fly with him and her PPL training meaning she knew or should have known she was required to report him to CASA which did not occur.

 

So we are left with does the cost of legal action and any damages bankrupt RAAus.

This is the real risk which may take 5 years plus to play out.

 

First up, the  Pilots actions sadly caused his own demise. 
However, the people involved in this debacle within RAA, by  their own silly actions have now resulted in a legal disaster,  for the organisation and themselves.

CASA, made a mistake by outsourcing the responsibility for managing our sector of aviation to a third-party, namely the RAA. It all looked pretty rosy until the RAA ditched incorporation and went private company and  from then on it has gone simply backwards.. it should’ve been written in the original agreement that the organisation of RAA could never be changed from being incorporated.

as many of the old people will tell you,  the greed in RAA started from the moment became a company . Certain aspects of the constitution were changed to give people advantage,  within the hierarchy.

Lots of secret squirrel stuff going on behind closed doors in RAA that the members never knew about, not to mention conflicts of interest I would allege.

Go back and talk to some of the old board members of the organisation,  I won’t say what I know here.

CASA are going to have to deal with this like it or not, and from what I know, there have been discussions with concern over the current situation.

Personally, I don’t care if the perpetrators of this legal disaster all end up living in Tents, because they all knew what they were doing at the time was totally wrong and then trying to hide everything from a Coronial Inquest.

it is up to the DPP if they want to proceed with legal action but also consider the legal action from the family as well, only in time will the findings be known?

The RAA’s performance and a lot of things of recent times have shown me that they are not doing a very good job of promoting aviation considering the AUF days it came from.

The only thing that can save the RAA now is to completely replace the whole hierarchy in the board, and start again with a fresh slate.

if this is not done CASA  will have to take it back over and make a battle plan for another method of overseeing our sector in Recreational Aviation. 
Hint CASA?

Immediately adopt the FAA FAR  Part 103 system from the USA  and build on that.

 

[facthunter]

IF Cronyism bothers you go back to the early AUF Days.  It was WHO you KNEW. to live the good life. Life is very finite. We don't have the time to start a  NEW  RAAus .  Copy places that work, like NZ. .Nev

[jackc]

Start with system run by 300,000 members under the sanction of the FAA that works. 
The cronyism in RAA was started by all the members who changed RAA fro being incorporated 🤢

We all slept with Fleas 👎👎

[facthunter]

WE were Hijacked. Nev

[jackc]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

WE were Hijacked. Nev

Maybe so, but that’s no excuse now for simply all the members to bend over the table and cop it.
It’s time the Empire struck back NOW.  Members? call to ARMs 🥷🥷

[Admin]

18 minutes ago, jackc said:

Maybe so, but that’s no excuse now for simply all the members to bend over the table and cop it.
It’s time the Empire struck back NOW.  Members? call to ARMs 🥷🥷

Myself and this site has been there and done that which resulted in opening the door to the business people who stole our Association from us

[jackc]

Can members call a Special General Meeting, the CEO emailed me, saying we are all Stakeholders? 
 I am not so sure that is possible under the current constitution which I have been told was illegally changed some time ago.

We can all sit on the  forum and complain OR simply smile as we cop it up ther rear most facing orifice.

If RAA goes down? You all get ready to just fly paper planes across your lounge room, using a pedestal fan, to generate a cross wind 👍

Those of us that can go the VH pathway can simply leave RAA, no more registrations a more friendly MARAP scheme under SAAA.

[FlyingVizsla]

36 minutes ago, jackc said:

Can members call a Special General Meeting

Yes, you can.  But you need 100 members to agree on what they want.  The following is an excerpt from the Constitution.

 

General meetings of Members
18 General meetings called by Directors
18.1 The Directors may call a general meeting.
18.2 If at least one hundred (100) Members or 5% of the membership, whichever is the lower, make a
written request to the Company for a general meeting to be held, the Directors must:
(a) within twenty-one (21) days of the Members’ request, give all Members notice of a general
meeting, and
(b) hold the general meeting at a time and place within reasonable access within two (2) months
of the Members’ request.
18.3 The Members requesting a general meeting pursuant to Clause 18.2 must be current Members
with voting rights at the time of making the request.
18.4 The Members who make the request for a general meeting must:
(a) state in the request any resolution and/or business to be proposed at the meeting,
(b) sign the request, and
(c) give the request to the Company.
18.5 Separate copies of a document setting out the request may be signed by Members if the wording of
the request is the same in each copy

[Keith Page]

2 hours ago, Admin said:

Myself and this site has been there and done that which resulted in opening the door to the business people who stole our Association from us

I was there and witnessed the white ant eating…..those who did the white anting should be ashamed of themselves.

[jackc]

1 minute ago, Keith Page said:

I was there and witnessed the white ant eating…..those who did the white anting should be ashamed of themselves.

And those white ants that are still there?  Should immediately be removed, in the best interests of the RAA’s future……..

 

[Keith Page]

22 minutes ago, jackc said:

And those white ants that are still there?  Should immediately be removed, in the best interests of the RAA’s future……..

 

Come on Jack, RAAus is now only kept alive by life support, turn the life support off and start again.

Not a whisper to the members from RAAus — only what we are hearing is from the press, hence there is a case of hiding facts and responsibilities.