RAA HQ - legal issues and claims

[jackc]

3 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

Not only RAA; SAAA will also recognise and agree with the TAFE course and its recognition as AME.

But are Manual  of Standards ready?  I suspect there is paperwork not yet ready?

Show me the readiness of what is planned?

[rodgerc]

[aro]

22 hours ago, facthunter said:

It's obvious this fellow could FLY.  HE  was probably one of the few "naturals" out there.

His skill isn't the issue. The requirements for a license/certificate have 2 components: skill, measured through the test, and experience, measured as a number of hours.

I've never seen a suggestion that the required hours should or could be waived for a particularly skilful pilot.

[facthunter]

Most tests are based in passing the exam or demonstrated skills. There is no minimum hours to Solo.  as an example  At the other end of the scale, no matter what hours you have you must still demonstrate the skills required at frequent  times to retain your ability to exercise the Privileges of your license and have recent experience also.  Nev

[aro]

No minimum to solo, but that is strictly supervised by the instructor.

From RPC through to ATPL, there are minimum hour requirements - it's not just skill and passing the test.

[spacesailor]

Where could you go ! , after the CFI tells you " you will never gain your pilot certificate " .

30 hours training , & I loved every minute of it .

So I gave up , & the club lost that money , that I thought , was well worth it , for my joy flights .

now I will happily pay a lot more , yet not sit in the left seat .

spacesailor

 

[onetrack]

There's plenty of crash records that show, that even fully-trained and highly experienced pilots crash with devastating results, due to misplaced over-confidence in their skills and abilities - and they often take heaps of pax with them.

 

I would hazard a guess that this pilot in question would have ended up killing himself (and possibly others), even if he had done more training hours, because his personality traits showed his penchant for risk-taking was extreme, and his supremely confident opinion of his own abilities was a recipe for disaster, when it came to flying and judgement of suitable weather conditions.

 

I was reading the crash report on the Junkers JU-52 in Switzerland, and despite both pilots being "highly trained" and "highly experienced" ex-Air Force pilots, they were risk-takers in the extreme, and should never have been allowed to fly the Junkers and carry pax.

 

They failed to understand some pretty basic flying skills such as density altitude, flying into enclosed valleys, updraughts and downdraughts in mountainous terrain, and flying too slow. Add in a tired old pre-WW2 aircraft, and the outcome was entirely predictable. Yet these pilots passed all their tests, and even had glowing reports with regard to piloting skills.

 

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/last-of-the-warbirds-the-2018-ju-air-junkers-ju-52-crash-82d41c659dfb

 

 

[Area-51]

Point 1 - This post is way off track; its so far off track it does not even register... it had the hallmarks of motivation early on and is now just another forum post of speculation and meandering discussion... Its not even amusing; its just apathetically very very sad.

 

Point 2 - RAA has some seriously questionable internal cultural rot going on at the very top, and it either gets removed now, or, continues to fester and degrade the establishment, its resources, and its public image borne by its members (the establishment's owners).

 

Point 3 - Under the RAA constitution a minimum quorum of 10% (1000 persons) of the total members, as a group, can put forward and vote upon calling for a "special resolution - vote of no confidence" requesting the immediate removal and expulsion of either "individual", or, "all of" RAA appointed Board Members. 
 

The Board Members do not own RAA... They are Elected for a position upon the Board through member voting, or, members signing their vote over to a Proxy (aka a Board Member) - this is very bad if the Board is corrupt..

 

So the question that should be getting discussed here is "How will we, the rightful owners of RAA, assemble ourselves into a quorum of 1000 in order to immediately extricate this malignant toxicity from the establishment?"

 

Solution - Sack the entire Board swiftly in one go and move on by reinstating each vacant position with an officer that is able to display a proven track record of highly respected and developed standards of Ethics and Integrity.

 

That's what needs to happen. 
 

There is nothing to discuss about the matter.

 

Time to flush the stinking bog down the toilet and kick the inflated hagas into touch.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:56 AM by Area-51

[jackc]

6 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

Point 1 - This post is way off track; its so far off track it does not even register... it had the hallmarks of motivation early on and is now just another forum post of speculation and meandering discussion... Its not even amusing; its just apathetically very very sad.

 

Point 2 - RAA has some seriously questionable internal cultural rot going on at the very top, and it either gets removed now, or, continues to fester and degrade the establishment, its resources, and its public image borne by its members (the establishment's owners).

 

Point 3 - Under the RAA constitution a minimum quorum of 10% (1000 persons) of the total members, as a group, can put forward and vote upon calling for a "special resolution - vote of no confidence" requesting the immediate removal and expulsion of either "individual", or, "all of" RAA appointed Board Members. 
 

The Board Members do not own RAA... They are Elected for a position upon the Board through member voting, or, members signing their vote over to a Proxy (aka a Board Member) - this is very bad if the Board is corrupt..

 

So the question that should be getting discussed here is "How will we, the rightful owners of RAA, assemble ourselves into a quorum of 1000 in order to immediately extricate this malignant toxicity from the establishment?"

 

Solution - Sack the entire Board swiftly in one go and move on by reinstating each vacant position with an officer that is able to display a proven track record of highly respected and developed standards of Ethics and Integrity.

 

That's what needs to happen. 
 

There is nothing to discuss about the matter.

 

Time to flush the stinking bog down the toilet and kick the inflated hagas into touch.

 

 

Winner winner, chicken dinner 🤩🤩

[facthunter]

That's the extreme view. Hopefully not the majority view.  It's the Job of the CASA to sort this out. . They won't wish to but that's the reality. They do audits when it suites them..  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Area-51 said:

Point 1 - This post is way off track; its so far off track it does not even register... it had the hallmarks of motivation early on and is now just another forum post of speculation and meandering discussion... Its not even amusing; its just apathetically very very sad.

 

Point 2 - RAA has some seriously questionable internal cultural rot going on at the very top, and it either gets removed now, or, continues to fester and degrade the establishment, its resources, and its public image borne by its members (the establishment's owners).

 

Point 3 - Under the RAA constitution a minimum quorum of 10% (1000 persons) of the total members, as a group, can put forward and vote upon calling for a "special resolution - vote of no confidence" requesting the immediate removal and expulsion of either "individual", or, "all of" RAA appointed Board Members. 
 

The Board Members do not own RAA... They are Elected for a position upon the Board through member voting, or, members signing their vote over to a Proxy (aka a Board Member) - this is very bad if the Board is corrupt..

 

So the question that should be getting discussed here is "How will we, the rightful owners of RAA, assemble ourselves into a quorum of 1000 in order to immediately extricate this malignant toxicity from the establishment?"

 

Solution - Sack the entire Board swiftly in one go and move on by reinstating each vacant position with an officer that is able to display a proven track record of highly respected and developed standards of Ethics and Integrity.

 

That's what needs to happen. 
 

There is nothing to discuss about the matter.

 

Time to flush the stinking bog down the toilet and kick the inflated hagas into touch.

 

 

You've pretty much got it in a nutshell.

The last time that was tried was in the Inc days where a much lower number of votes was required.

The debate on what to do and how to do it, who should repace......etc  was conducted on this site, in public over months.

When the meeting arrived, the strongest agitators for change apparently remained silent and tried to get someone to move the motion for them. The motion was defeated by a very handy bagfull of Proxy votes which had been sought from all over Australia, thanks to the open discussions on social media.

 

So probably going to e repeated if the 1000 people are canvassed on this site.

 

If you have management experience/experience managing a big Association/know how to use the Constitution and know how to work quietly behind the scenes, that's one pathway.

 

The real question is why are the 9000 others, not saying anything?

[sfGnome]

21 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The real question is why are the 9000 others, not saying anything?

Possibly because, to take a current parallel example, orange man tearing everything down isn’t going so well, is it? Revolutions such as you and a few others are proposing generally don’t end well (and the tear-it-up folk were soundly rejected at the last elections, so it seems that your 9000 would prefer stability).

[FlyingVizsla]

2 hours ago, Area-51 said:

Point 3 - Under the RAA constitution a minimum quorum of 10% (1000 persons) of the total members, as a group, can put forward and vote upon calling for a "special resolution - vote of no confidence" requesting the immediate removal and expulsion of either "individual", or, "all of" RAA appointed Board Members. 

You need to read the Constitution - "at least one hundred (100) Members or 5% of the membership, whichever is the lower,"

 

[FlyingVizsla]

2 hours ago, Area-51 said:

members signing their vote over to a Proxy (aka a Board Member)

Constitution again - "33.1 A Member may appoint a proxy to attend and vote at a general meeting on their behalf.
33.2 A proxy does not need to be a Member and may be the Chairman of the meeting." 

 

If you lodge a Proxy, then the person holding it must vote according to your instructions. 

[FlyingVizsla]

2 hours ago, Area-51 said:

Solution - Sack the entire Board swiftly in one go and move on by reinstating each vacant position with an officer that is able to display a proven track record of highly respected and developed standards of Ethics and Integrity.

OK, you've managed to convince 100 members to call a Special Meeting to sack the Board.  The meeting is announced along with the Motion.  

 

Let me rub my crystal ball .... Lots of enraged members then decide to oppose the Motion.  

 

If the Motion is successful, then the Board is sacked and RAAus operates in a vacuum, till they can call for nominations and conduct an election.  I predict most of the Board will be returned.   We whinged about some AUF Board members, but we voted them back in because the majority "knew the name."  Sacking the Board and sacking the employees won't solve anything.

[aro]

The problem with sacking the board is that it doesn't make the legal action go away. So then you have to find volunteers to eat someone else's shit sandwich.

[jackc]

21 minutes ago, aro said:

The problem with sacking the board is that it doesn't make the legal action go away. So then you have to find volunteers to eat someone else's shit sandwich.

Not if the whole show folds, it’s the the problem for those charged, IF found guilty?

 

[aro]

6 minutes ago, jackc said:

Not if the whole show folds, it’s the the problem for those charged, IF found guilty?

If a negligence case goes ahead, it is against the organization.

 

The referral to the DPP could be for an individual, but I think the organization can also be charged. I think in a case like this they actually prefer to charge the organization, because they are then seen to do something when charging an individual might seem overly harsh.

[jackc]

Just now, aro said:

If a negligence case goes ahead, it is against the organization.

 

The referral to the DPP could be for an individual, but I think the organization can also be charged. I think in a case like this they actually prefer to charge the organization, because they are then seen to do something when charging an individual might seem overly harsh.

And……if the organisation no longer exists?

[aro]

8 minutes ago, jackc said:

if the organisation no longer exists?

 

I think charges against the organization become irrelevant. But RAA pilots and aircraft would be grounded, so that's the worst case scenario.

 

If I only had a RAA license, I would be applying for a RPL ASAP.

[onetrack]

You should've elected the professional nudist who offered himself, the last time nominations were put up. Then he could claim the board had nothing to hide. 

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, jackc said:

Not if the whole show folds, it’s the the problem for those charged, IF found guilty?

 

In which case there would no longer be a board to sack.

[RossK]

My opinion, which is worth what you have paid for it, is that 2 of the 3 RAAus officers implicated are no longer with the organisation. 

To say the whole organisation is rotten is unfair.

When I read the report, it shows that some staff within RAAus were questioning the processes, but were overuled by higher officers and legal counsel.

 

Edited Thursday at 12:04 AM by RossK

[facthunter]

You can't use someone Just because they had nothing on that day Nev

[jackc]

3 hours ago, RossK said:

My opinion, which is worth what you have paid for it, is that 2 of the 3 RAAus officers implicated are no longer with the organisation. 

To say the whole organisation is rotten is unfair.

When I read the report, it shows that some staff within RAAus were questioning the processes, but were overuled by higher officers and legal counsel.

 

Look at what it’s doing to Recreational Aviation? Increased costs, more onerous regulation,

they grounded one of my aircraft on a phone call, no supporting documentation.

They could not manage a kids sandpit, from phone calls I have discussions about, it’s a mess, they have shut down flying schools and owners walked away, had enough.

Yes, there are some great people in the organisation, tainted by the few.

But don’t worry, plans are being made by CASA if it all goes down in a heap.

Sadly, that is what it may take.

For me? It’s no problem, even confiscate my planes, I will go to the U.S. get my factory built Aerolite 103, go there 4 times per year for 3-4 weeks a time and fly happy, in the most enjoyable aviation sector, who’s rules fit on one A4 page. 
Just image getting my radio call for the biggest air show in the World

‘Jack Aerolite, you are clear to land runway,  19 please exit taxiway J and proceed to ultralight parking’ 

Screw Australia, I don’t need any registration or licence to fly into the biggest Airshow in the World 🤩🤩