RAA HQ - legal issues and claims

[jackc]

2 minutes ago, Keith Page said:

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.

Neglect in duty of care to Stake holders, as we are known as………

[Moneybox]

Are there any facts to confirm reasons for all this action or is this just a group of members tearing down the establishment that's supporting us? Mutiny is not a good thing unless all are about to go down with the ship.

[Love to fly]

12 minutes ago, Moneybox said:

Are there any facts to confirm reasons for all this action or is this just a group of members tearing down the establishment that's supporting us? Mutiny is not a good thing unless all are about to go down with the ship.

The Coroner's Findings are the only objective 'fact' I'm aware of, along perhaps with the email from Rod Birrell. The lack of transparency and communication from the RAAUS executive is concerning. Whether that breaches their constitution or not would be speculative on my part as I haven't read the constitution. But I doubt that would be the case. JackC appears to have information that others aren't privy too. The veracity of this information is unknown, at least by me. 

 

And the Coroner's Findings are worth reading carefully, if you haven't already.  COR 2022 005430 Form 37-Finding into Death Following Inquest_Signed.pdf

[BurnieM]

There appears to be a lot of history which some of us here are not aware of.

If you have facts then please state them.

RAAus being a company surprised me and I am not aware of why this happended.

However from what I know they do a reasonable job with limited resources.

Withholding information from the Coroner was stupid.

 

But....

.... we are where we are.

 

What is the best option moving forward with what RAAus is now ?

 

[facthunter]

 Has the prosecutor decided to Proceed yet?  Nev

[FlyingVizsla]

37 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

There appears to be a lot of history

RAAus Ltd is a Not-for-Profit company run by and for members.  Keith Page was a director of an alternative to RAAus - EELA - which was a For Profit company, but it never got approval from CASA to operate.  Rod Birrell has a long history with AUF / RAAus.  

 

There are others around who feel they have been snubbed by the changing organisation and have an axe to grind, or look at the AUF days with rose coloured glasses.

 

There are people who want to go back to the days when the Board & employees failed 5 CASA audits and ignored all warnings - CASA then stopped any aircraft registrations and appointed someone to oversee the whole process (at members' cost) until they got their house in order.  We still have a plane that was taken off the register then, and hasn't returned.  There were complaints that the Board consisted of Flying School operators who were only there to protect their businesses.

 

One downside of the Incorporated organisation, which was moved to Victoria at one stage, then moved to Canberra, was that the Secretary had to reside in the State of Incorporation.  When a Board member was Secretary, he had to either reside in that State (or territory) or they had to nominate one of the office staff as Secretary (which usually happened). 

 

RAAus will never be 100% acceptable to all members.  Part of that is the legislation they have to live within, which is a dog's dinner.  Aircraft that can't fit anywhere etc.

[jackc]

1 hour ago, Moneybox said:

Are there any facts to confirm reasons for all this action or is this just a group of members tearing down the establishment that's supporting us? Mutiny is not a good thing unless all are about to go down with the ship.

Special  General Meetings are  generally convened for the purpose of solving any concerns, The membership may have on the direction of an organisation and to work out plans, to solve any issues relating to those concerns.

They are also used to plan future direction of the organisation in its future.

This is not necessarily about tearing the organisation down but to correct problems within it however. I was the President  of one such organisation in another hobby where people forged signatures to convene a special general meeting. Those people having personal interest in destroying the place. For me it was simple as President . I spoke to the committee and told them of my total concerns in remaining President  and all of the committee and myself decide to resign in total immediately,  and gave a time for that and published that time and we all walked away from the whole organisation and left them to it. 
Not my doing, but many other members decide to form a new organisation which I simply joined as a member and in within 2 years  I I was made President of that organisation and we continued to further our activities as we wanted in the previous organisation and did so for a number of years.
I was made life member of the same organisation, and  in between all of us. We made it something really worthwhile so yes some good can come out of tearing organisations down for want of a  better description and it’s an unfortunate thing to ever have to do, and I would never want to do it again in my lifetime. 

[turboplanner]

A lot of different subjects here all rolled into one thread; DPP actions where there MAY be action taken IF there is evidence which COULD result in convictions and fines, but nothing happening, a few statements of who was at fault which were personal opinions. A second legal system the adversarial in front of a judge discussed, mixed in with the first process, when there may not be a second process, RAA Ltd attacked for not telling everyone (as the board of management would in the case of RAA Inc.) when in a limited company your positions are shareholders, so you might be told at the AGM etc. and a lot of stirring going on based on the same original material. These things take time to roll out.

[jackc]

The way it is, my tenure with RAA will not continue, because I have an alternative pathway to continue on, like many of us do.

Being a member of an organisation, who treats Stakeholders with disdain, is not on my agenda. Aviation and anything attached to it should be enjoyable with much camaraderie, I don’t see RAA, providing that, in the future. I don’t have much life left to waste……. 

[Arron25]

17 hours ago, Keith Page said:

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

Hi Keith, Time to dig out all the paperwork and give CASA an Alternative (only thing to change... lose helicopters)

[BurnieM]

For licensing moving to a RPL with Class 5 medical is straight forward.

 

Has anybody successfully moved a plane from the RAAus register back to the CASA register 

and what costs and how long did it take ?

 

Edited April 3 by BurnieM

[jackc]

1 hour ago, Arron25 said:

Hi Keith, Time to dig out all the paperwork and give CASA an Alternative (only thing to change... lose helicopters)

I m writing CASA and relevant MPs for suggestions to fix……

[Thruster88]

4 hours ago, BurnieM said:

For licensing moving to a RPL with Class 5 medical is straight forward.

 

Has anybody successfully moved a plane from the RAAus register back to the CASA register 

and what costs and how long did it take ?

 

I know someone who moved a newly purchased 19-xxxx aircraft back to VH. It had previously been registered VH experimental. Not sure on cost but for him with a PPl and access to maintenance it made economic sense to not become a member of RAAus. 

Edited April 4 by Thruster88

[storchy neil]

well well ian hi  

shit twenty years since a couple blokes leaned on a fence admiring a blue bird

back to subject who would have thought that this was going to happen karma is bloody beautiful after the crap that i went through with 254524 

as far as rod birril is concerned he flew a training plane that had a leaking fuel tank 

that dog catcher when asked by me why are the questions for maintainer so easy he replied to make everybody happy some people i know should not be allowed to hold a spanner let alone work on a plane 

when your plane has in the flight manual return line to tank and i told the so-called boss bloke about it his reply dont make waves 

by the way Storch s 254524 was cut in half i got jack shit help from RAA office

 

neil

[Keith Page]

On 3/4/2025 at 3:53 PM, Moneybox said:

Are there any facts to confirm reasons for all this action or is this just a group of members tearing down the establishment that's supporting us? Mutiny is not a good thing unless all are about to go down with the ship.

There is no mutiny..

The big one “the coroners inquiry”, have a look at that and have a slow think. That is not a nice look for RAAus.

The question I have to ask. Why have we been told anything from management’s perspective??

To me that is an attempt to hide the issue and others. 
imagine the legal costs to RAAus remember that is members money.

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

On 03/04/2025 at 5:11 PM, Love to fly said:

The Coroner's Findings are the only objective 'fact' I'm aware of, along perhaps with the email from Rod Birrell. The lack of transparency and communication from the RAAUS executive is concerning. Whether that breaches their constitution or not would be speculative on my part as I haven't read the constitution. But I doubt that would be the case. JackC appears to have information that others aren't privy too. The veracity of this information is unknown, at least by me. 

 

And the Coroner's Findings are worth reading carefully, if you haven't already.  COR 2022 005430 Form 37-Finding into Death Following Inquest_Signed.pdf

I have no stake in this debate but object to the misuse of  the word FACT in the above statement.

 

A Coroner's Findings may containe many  facts & opinions but in the end, the report is an opinion derived from the Coroners understanding of the facts & opinions submitted ie not a fact in itself.

 

If a Coroners Findings were fact, they could not be legitimately challenged. Coroners Findings are often challenged - sometimes there is error, sometimes untrooth and other times lack of evidence 😈

[Blueadventures]

22 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I have no stake in this debate but object to the misuse of  the word FACT in the above statement.

 

A Coroner's Findings may containe many  facts & opinions but in the end, the report is an opinion derived from the Coroners understanding of the facts & opinions submitted ie not a fact in itself.

 

If a Coroners Findings were fact, they could not be legitimately challenged. Coroners Findings are often challenged - sometimes there is error, sometimes untruth and other times lack of evidence 😈

Agree, a Coroner at times will offer 'Privilege' to extract truthful replies to questions; which carries interesting benefits to those. 

[Keith Page]

On 4/4/2025 at 8:51 AM, Arron25 said:

Hi Keith, Time to dig out all the paperwork and give CASA an Alternative (only thing to change... lose helicopters)

Sorry….I have moved on……..I am involved with another project and do not have any time for anything else.

As for ELAAA there is exciting news in the pipe line.

[Keith Page]

On 3/4/2025 at 5:58 PM, FlyingVizsla said:

RAAus Ltd is a Not-for-Profit company run by and for members.  Keith Page was a director of an alternative to RAAus - EELA - which was a For Profit company, but it never got approval from CASA to operate.  Rod Birrell has a long history with AUF / RAAus.  

 

There are others around who feel they have been snubbed by the changing organisation and have an axe to grind, or look at the AUF days with rose coloured glasses.

 

There are people who want to go back to the days when the Board & employees failed 5 CASA audits and ignored all warnings - CASA then stopped any aircraft registrations and appointed someone to oversee the whole process (at members' cost) until they got their house in order.  We still have a plane that was taken off the register then, and hasn't returned.  There were complaints that the Board consisted of Flying School operators who were only there to protect their businesses.

 

One downside of the Incorporated organisation, which was moved to Victoria at one stage, then moved to Canberra, was that the Secretary had to reside in the State of Incorporation.  When a Board member was Secretary, he had to either reside in that State (or territory) or they had to nominate one of the office staff as Secretary (which usually happened). 

 

RAAus will never be 100% acceptable to all members.  Part of that is the legislation they have to live within, which is a dog's dinner.  Aircraft that can't fit anywhere etc.

Not quite correct there Sue….

ELAAA you are saying a profit organisation, just a question.. any organisation has to make a profit so expansion, development and the education programs.

The other issue Part 149, have a slow think and check that one out.

[spacesailor]

I often wear my " Rose tinted " sunglasses ! .

Optometrist told me to wear " Rose tinted glasses " .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

He was talking about ROSE in "tilted" wine glasses. Nev

[spacesailor]

But that view is the same .

Is it not ? .

And I don't get the ' headache ' after too many glasses ! .

spacesailor

Edited April 6 by spacesailor

[facthunter]

 Eases tensions and soothes the Soul, Laddie.  I'm not a Rose person myself. Goes good with Fish Chook or Chinese etc. The LADIIES generally like it if you know any. Nev

[BrendAn]

On 31/03/2025 at 11:54 PM, 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.

pretty sure hiding documents that were detrimental to raa staff would be considered criminal acts , it can't negligent when it was intended surely. 

[facthunter]

People are entitled to the Presumption of Innocence until charged and proven guilty. Let's just allow that shall we? Nev