RAA Representation

[Spriteah]

I'd like to create a thread to discuss what we expect from both RAA paid employees and what we expect from elected representatives.

 

Of recent times there has been a lot of lobbying against the elected board members over the requirement to carry a ELT.

 

The crux was that members were not consulted. Further to this point there are people pushing this as a great injustice and using scare tactics that this is just the begining and the board may introduce medicals, restrict slower aircraft ect. What we must all remember is what CASA says goes, the are the governing authority.

 

My point of view is that they are elected to represent us as a group. We have the options to removed them if they fail us. As with any elected body they do not seek approval for the majority of decisions they make.

 

I would also like to make it clear that the majority of RAA members DO NOT VOTE in the elections. This indicates to me a lack of concern as to what is occuring in our organisation.

 

I will follow ths thread with interest as I'm sure so will the elected board members and RAA staff.

 

Jim.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think you've probably missed the point Cloudsuck was trying to explain in simple terms on another thread

 

 

[Turnerj]

Ok, here is what i think,

 

While some of us go on about how bad casa is, the board members are working hard by negotiating and working with casa. that is what i expect of the Ra-aus employees. one example is ADSB, just about every organisation wanted to go ahead with ADSB, except Ra-aus. now look at the result (for now)

 

So obviously when we tried to get CTA, we wanted to be portrayed as a group of pilots with good airmanship etc, so how would we have looked if some of us tried to argue against PLB's? we would have taken 3 steps back from the 2 steps forward we have already taken. So maybe part of the boards job is to protect ra-aus members from themselves?

 

Whilst i do think the board coulld have gone about it a better way, i am still happy with the job they have done.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

OK here's my two bobs' worth, not that long ago CASA didn't want to have to a lot to do with governing us. They gave us, and the RAA, the right to 'self govern' yes, remember 'self govern' ?. I thought that sounded just fine...they aren't looking our way too much.....great, lets go fly.

 

Unfortunatly for the majority of the members, some of our higher-up elected officers, and a small minority of our members wern't happy, or smart enough, to operate below the radar, and were intent instead on marching onward and upward towards 'the new GA'....... 760kgs,.... CTA endorsements,.... human factors,.... and some idiots even suggested we go the full hog, with medicals and maintenance releases !!

 

What actually happened, because the above mentioned wern't smart enough to realise when they were doing fine, was that out RAA head honchos, without proper consultation with the member base, kept chasing more. We got mandatory Human Factors, and Mandatory PLBs, and probabily Mandatory VHF radio supposeably in exchange for the promised 760 kgs and CTA endorsements.

 

Well surprise, surprise, we didn't get the promised 760 kg and probabily won't in the foreseable future, and we are definitly not getting the CTA approval,at the moment, period.

 

So now since CASA has reniged on the deal with Human Factors, and PLBs and probabily VHF radios, do we now drop all of those out of our ops manual ?. Don't think so, too late now Jose', it's a done deal.

 

We can of course un-elect our RAA elected officers for exercising poor judgement in dealing with the devil, but because of that poor judgement we are stuck with the rest !!.

 

Moral of the story:......When your laying low in the bush, and the enemy is circling, you don't jump up, wave a red flag, and make demands !!.....that's stupidity.

 

Looks to me like we have taken two steps foward, and three back ?.........

 

Please remember I have always been fully supportive of the AUF and the RAA-Aus for close to 15 years now, and will continue to be.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

Some very good points there Major, things that make me think about what might happen to RAAus in the future. If we're not careful, Recreational Aviation will no longer be "recreational" it'll end up being another level of GA and like you say, medicals, maintenance releases and what ever else they could stipulate.

 

I to am a huge supporter of RAAus and will be for many, many years to come but lets keep it recreational. The track we're on now could look grim in the future with more requirements which could also mean that current members might have to stop flying. I don't want that, so how to we put the anchors on this?

 

 

[Guest blakey36]

I agree with the Maj. Keen to be like BIG BROTHER [GA] we are not only sleeping with the enemy but with their aid we are regulating ourselves out of existance...Sure we should have our spot in the aviation world...ours was to bring LOW COST flying to the masses...Regulation = Greater Costs...Don't get me wrong I support our Governing body and its Board but dealing with CASA should be only on matters of safety.

 

Bryan

 

 

[turboplanner]

You can't look at anything in isolation.

 

1. It appears the present situation was brought to a head by bad behaviour on our part, and probably some inappropriate comments at just the wrong time.

 

That's been compounded by the apparent failure to take action by the people charged with that resonsibility.

 

Their silence probably tells us all we need to know.

 

2. The Public Liability era created self governing bodies who then had to manage any risk, so nothing's changed there.

 

3. However, in our case, the top end needs to use CASA controlled facilities, so there's a need to meet joint requirements (communication, procedures, specifications, regulations)

 

I was able to administer about 30 different car classes by allowing them to set their own specifications, make their own rules, and cover their own liabilities under a guideline and audit umbrella, and while the negotiations can be difficult, this multi layered operation worked extremely well.

 

Under this system, the guys at the bottom end who just wanted to go out now and again and have some fun, didn't have to pay $100,000.00 for their races cars (and of course they couldn't achieve the performance which required that expenditure).

 

And Major, apart from keeping your head below the grass, you have to watch down in it or be biten on the bum by friendly fire.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry Dexter, Neville Chamberlain

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Yes well said Blakey36, I agree we do have to communicate and co-operate with CASA. But give them an inch, and they'll take a mile everytime. A good portion of their workload is in keeping themselves in a job, and additional work and regs will do it for them.

 

They are supposed to be SAFETY driven, but anyone who has known them long -term (since 1968 myself) realises that the horse may change it's spots, but it's still the same old nag............if we don't get real smart, real quick, we WILL loose our recreational flying freedoms......problem is once they start, and they have already, they won't know when to stop !!......we are the taxpayers who pay thier wages and retirements remember.

 

 

[shags_j]

out of interest guys, do we have any board members on these forums as regular posters?

 

 

[Spriteah]

Shags interesting question.

 

I would also be interested if we have staff that read the posts. I would be very surprised if we didn't.

 

Jim Tatlock

 

Lethbridge.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There are at least 3 on here.