Pete Greed

Done............also contacted Member for Mallee, Andrew Broad re. ASIC and access to regional airports.

Frank: I guess if we had a strategic plan that pointed a direction for RAAus it may include the above mentioned standing committees (just a suggestion) and the skills sets required to to service a progressive national organisation. I'm not ruling anyone out regarding nomination to the Board. But the membership need to know who they are voting for and what skills they will bring to the organisation. Not such a big step and you are right it is a job ad. for a Board Member, not an application for a regional representative. The "realism check" is to think about the past two years and the bloody mess we got into operating under the old structure. We have a choice - restructure along the lines of recognised good business practice or go back to playing kick to kick (usually with someones head). Cheers Pete

Jim it was great to have you speak at our AGM Gosh..... been away for a bit but not much seems to have changed :( Just a few comments on a restructure: Do away with the representative model and select a smaller Board (say five plus office bearers) versed in governance and management practice. This way Board Members will be compelled to represent all members, not just parochial State/Territory/Regional interests; In addition, advertise for Board members whose resumes and skills are aliened with the standing committees of Finance, CASA/Technical Operations and Member Services; Via the existing regional network of Clubs and Members, identify those who continue to shape the future of RAAus outside of any centralised authority; As above, utilise the Standing Committee structure to engage with the creative talent already resident within regional Australia; Via the Executive Committee initiate and test RAAus Board policy with Clubs located across Regional Australia; Within the Member Services Standing Committee identify and deliver governance and management training in keeping with RAAus good practice. Do not down play or ignore the professional skills of volunteers where ever they may reside. Cheers Pete

Agree with that but the transition from a committee of management to a proper, contemporary business model was always going to be hard. I am not convinced that there are still members who like the idea of a less bureaucratic structure and the committee/board tinkering in management. What we are currently experiencing are the growing pains of a new organisation. Don't be too hard on our past administration but resist with a passion any attempt for a return to the past. And remember - power is never given, it is always taken. (Unless you work in welfare, that is) Pete

Picking up on Oscar's original point: The past fifteen to twenty years has seen unprecedented engagement between government and the community based sector. By ‘community based sector’ we mean community organisations that started life as independent local operations with a charter to serve/service local people. Essentially voluntary organisations, their governance and management was merged and operated under a true committee of management structure (they were the thinkers as well as the doers.) – they were the formal and informal Clubs and Associations that, in part, defined Australia’s social well-being/society and established the liveability of communities. Their organisational structures ranged from democratic to dictatorships and everything in between. Political correctness had not been invented, and when disputes did arise the locals alone sorted out the problem. Local leadership was a feature of successful governance and management. It was no surprise that as some of these organisations began to take on wider responsibilities, the success and efficiencies of their operations grew, and with governance (strategic direction) flowing directly from the people themselves, what presented was a winning combination; a combination that presented a real alternative to the previously highly inefficient and expensive government models of service delivery. When government services were contracted out about twenty years ago, community based providers responded by bidding into what was a for- profit market. Their successful bids were characterised by newly constructed service provider constitutions and organisations comfortable with their own ability to locally research, designed and maintained programs - projects that incorporated flexible delivery involving minimum regulation and minimum program documentation. Without exception, the community based service providers significantly out performed their public service counterparts. This also resulted in considerable savings to the Australian taxpayer. At least part of that success was because the bulk of their own inherent resources, added to the funds made available under government contracts, were allocated to the job at hand without the expense of having to justify their reason for being. Unfortunately in a short space of time the community based service provider, having neglected to advocate and negotiate for their own existence, exposed a serious strategic error of judgment – a neglect of governance responsibility that caused many of the impediments that now constitute the relationship, between community based organisations and government. So now on one hand we have government regulation solely determining the shape of provision/service and on the other a push by government for the community based sector to comply via corporate law while tied to a contract. Put simply, the terms of the contractual relationships with government were developed by the very departments replaced by the tender process - departments that quickly invented the regulation and compliance systems that have put a strait-jacket on so many of today’s small business enterprises. This was the business environment that the AUF/RAAus found itself confronting when it established its deed of agreement with the government via CASA - pre-determined systems and regulation that now control our destiny, and a limited will by our leaders to renegotiate the terms of engagement. That, however I believe, is changing and there is an opportunity for the RAAus Board to connect with both the government via our politicians, and through the administrative/management arm of RAAus to CASA. Governments will distance themselves from the voters at their own peril Never in history have ordinary people been in the position to be so informed. However without strategies and a formal plan to work towards, the application of that knowledge will mean nothing and do nothing. All of us have a role to play in creating change. Some of it will be cultural/ philosophic , the other technical/operational. Lets make sure we have the right mix of both. Pete

Affordability is one of the main drivers of recreational flying today. From a basic RAAus aircraft to one with all the bells and whistles is now a choice that would have been out of reach for most fifteen years ago. Recreational aircraft can now match it with GA for sophistication in avionics, performance and quality. And all this at a time when many pilots just want to return to the simple life. We hear it all the time, and fair enough. The other driver is the shift by older pilots from PPL/GA to RAAus. Many who were GA instrument rated must look at the new glass panels/auto pilots of our newer recreational aircraft and consider their options. The advances have been breathtaking and all of this is going to put considerable pressure on our regulators and training institutions because sure as god the new technology will be utilised. (Just imagine what Oz Runways will be capable of in ten years time) There is no going back. Sure we can keep it simple, but to what degree will be a decision to be taken by the individual. What we must be sure of is that the system can cater for all. RAAus has a key role to play in the development of training that accommodates the sophistication of todays recreational aircraft. To delegate that responsibility solely to GA / CASA should not be an option. We really do need to redefine our RAAus organisational objectives if we are to stay current in a rapidly changing world. Pete

Whether learning to fly or learning to drive a car there is a degree of experiential learning that is entirely proper and relevant - a practical transfer of knowledge and skill from the person instructing, to the student. It is also a learning process that needs no student text book and indeed, from my past experience working in adult education, I have witnessed students who, with only the very basic literacy skills, have become successful and proficient pilots. Of course just like any other student pilot, how proficient will depend upon the quality of instruction, the aspirations of the student, the rules that regulate their local and regional airspace, but most of all, I would suspect, their peers. It is the value of peer review and peer pressure that I would like to mention here, as it can be both a powerful tool for the promotion of air safety and flying skill development, or conversely the daring-do culture, incorporating the undesirable elements we sometimes see/find in recreational and GA flying. At the end of a days flying at our small Club it is common to sit around a table and debrief over a few drinks. In Mildura we are fortunate to experience a wide variety of flying disciplines from regular RPT aircraft (including Jet aircraft), Air Ambulance and GA/IFR traffic, Helicopter movements, three Flying Schools and a Glider Club, two nautical miles to the S/W. A sister Club and RAAus Flying school is located twelve nautical miles to the N/W. The debriefing exercise, encouraged by our RAAus Flying Schools, is invaluable in resolving the issues specific to our particular regional circumstances. I make this point because without regular debriefings by ordinary RAAus pilots, someone, from outside our flying discipline, might seek to change a regulations that would restrict our access to local airspace. We are successfully identifying and attending to the issues as they impact on our local situation. However regulations, while important and necessary, should not drive the social behavior of our recreational aviation movement – that is something we should do for ourselves. In other posts I have proposed that the strategic directions for RAAus should be set by the thinking of regional clubs and members with RAAus being the clearing house of ideas and aspirations. I do not agree with some of the posters on this forum that board members need in-depth technical knowledge of the aviation industry. A knowledge of good governance and management (which could be learned on the job), a passion for recreational aviation and common sense would be enough. Technical expertise can be imported, by the Board, as required. Skill based boards while desirable are not absolutely necessary if a cohesive board and management team can be assembled. To me two way communications with the membership (field), is still the major consideration, as that is where the ideas, skills, talents and future reside. I would also suggest that the adoption of contemporary governance and management practice is professionally managed and there is no attempt to compromise the new system, with the failed old one. Pete

Pretty much sums it up Oscar. What we now need to see are the consultative, strategic planning and implementation processes that will make it happen - Members happy, RAAus board happy and to complete the trifecta, CASA happy. Get the above right and the necessary actions/operations will follow. That is, I am sure, what the majority of members want from the RAAus board; and certainly not more of the past machinations of who did what to who on the climb to our current dodgey position of shonkey governance/management and non compliance with the government (CASA). All the ducks are lined up. Experienced Chair and Treasurer, all we need to do is redefine the role of Secretary. Pete

My concern remains regarding the return to a failed governance and management system. The Secretary's position should be re-defined to that equal to Company Secretary, and the management of RAAus business reallocated to the CEO/General Manager. The role of the Executive also needs to be re-defined to that of "governance decisions" that need to be taken "immediately". With a properly functioning board/committee, that should be rare indeed and subject to board/committee ratification. These suggestions would of course have ramifications for our constitution, our relationship with CASA and the skill set required of some board/committee positions. The last thing we want to do is eliminate the skills and talent available as prospective board/committee members resident in regional Australia. But just as navigating has been revolutionized by the use of a GPS, so to must we use contemporary methods and tools to navigate todays business world. Board/committee members need not be qualified in the various disciplines required of modern business practice, but it is imperative that they understand it. Being a good shelia or bloke is no longer the primary attribute - be it a desirable attribute in itself. Governance does not happen by osmosis. It is a process that must be supported by good management - in the case of RAAus by our CEO/General Manager and paid professional Staff. The notion that RAAus can be controlled by a committee of management (or the Executive), delving in and out of management, is dead in the water. We have voted RAAus members on to the board/committee. They should be the drivers of RAAus' strategic thinking. What we as members need to hear more of is how that strategic thinking is being interpreted and implemented by the CEO/General Manager. Not the Chairperson. The Chairperson is there to solicit, via the elected board/committee members, the current and future directions of the organisation and to ensure that the organisations operational actions meet those expectations. Not sure if we are not still operating on the old model. Pete

I get a sense that things are on the up. The allocation of resources to make the cultural changes will be the next challenge for the board. Change in itself can be difficult enough but when there is a price tag attached, even more so. Lets hope the board has the confidence to commit. RAAus would appear to have the cash reserves to make it happen. Pete

Turbs.......what you just described is good governance. And I agree - that with what we have in the way of an incorporated association could work with the current board if it chose the path of good governance. All I'm suggesting is that given the growth of RAAus there are more proven, contemporary ways to structure the organisation that could improve communications at all levels, allow RAAus to think strategically and plan on behalf of its members, and comply with any deeds or contracts that align us with government regulation - what ever they may be. If we abnegate our governance responsibilities sure to god the government (via CASA) will occupy the vacuum - as it has. I believe the door is open for negotiations with CASA but the gene pool of ideas, and ideals, should be located beyond the RAAus Executive. Members need to be positive about the future of Recreational Aviation rather than forever contemplating the flawed practices of the past. The problem, of course, is that progress must start with the current elected Board or, as you say, the committee.

Hear what you are saying Oscar but it was CASA that invited RAAus to self regulate. The pre-existing regulations were always there. RAAus has the capacity to strategically plan (what it can achieve) but never has. It has allowed CASA to set the agenda. The way in which the annual deed of agreement is negotiated is but one of the potential tasks for a proactive Board. To remain where we are currently is not an option.

Oscar: your understanding that we operate with a constitution and a negotiated Deed of Agreement between RAAus and CASA, is the same as mine. What seems to be in dispute is "what was negotiated in terms of the relationship between the two bodies"? From the posting on this forum it would appear that contrary to good governance the Executive of RAAus has been listed as the contact/decision makers for the Deed of Agreement, as opposed to the Board. That could of course be corrected if it is deemed to be the problem. Pete

Dafydd: You may in fact be making a valid point (that needs the attention of the board). However at this time the re-structuring of our governance and management systems is the critical issue. Pete