dodo

I haven't checked the dates, but I imagine the Hume dam accident might have prompted that. No license or certificate (never had one), unregistered aircraft (never registered it after buying it), went out and buzzed boats at low level on the dam, clipped a wing on the water, went in but survived. Enough to make anyone cranky. Not just illegal, but deliberately dangerous to uninvolved people, which is rather more serious than breaking the law and risking yourself (although you will go to jail for that, surely enough). dodo

GA and RA are deliberately different, in a number of areas. And RA,for all it's faults,is a member run organisation. If there was a legislative reason for RA to be on a public register, they would be on a public register. As there isn't, it is up to the membership, and I can't see what the aviation rational for making it public would be. As GA, and therefore, not an RA member, your best bet is to complain to your MP (explain that you reason, and make it clear it isn't just wishing to influence an organisation you have chosen not to be a member of). But I agree on the billing: everyone should pay their bills, not just GA. I am just deeply suspicious of the current billing system, that seems to result in a very high error rate,with no consequences for attempting to bill people incorrectly - and the stories I referred to earlier weren't just RA, most were GA. dodo

If I was in that position, I think I would make my own from the tech manual. Probably a bit hard with renewals, unless you have kept perfect records of all correspondence, but with a new registration, I would just follow the manual. It's hard to see what could be objected to, if you ticked all the boxes under the right category. dodo EDIT -fixed grammar

I have heard in the past of pilots make deliberately misleading calls (Savannah nnnn, where nnnn is a another aircraft of the same type on the register). Never seen it done,but have heard plenty of complaints similar to yours, dodo

I haven't put this in the survey, as it isn't my aircraft, but I was talking to a CFI today whose J230 had been re-registered recently (last few weeks) and promptly. So that's one renewal (out of how many?) dodo

From his name and description, I assume he is a board member. Or CASA? dodo

I read the constitution. I don't think it specifies a time. dodo

Breach of 73 is obvious. 71? Unknown. How would you know how the accounts were kept (sec 71) if they are not published ( sec73) to members? I do not want RA-Aus to be diminished, but the board are doing that for us. How about just publishing the accounts before someone dobs us in for not publishing them? Is there something wrong with the accounts? dodo

I think the ferris wheel incident just provides ammunition. The underlying administrative issues were there, waiting for the right moment. The audit would have been scheduled months in advance. It just all coincided at the same time ,and it exposed all the weaknesses that had been waiting for years, in administration, in oversight, in governance, in communication. dodo

Yep, the executive have told the children they will have to wait. They are not sure what was meant by "the current state of affairs". Apparently, everything is rosy, so they wonder what is meant by "the current state of affairs"? dodo

Close to unbelievable! It seems there is no problem! The response by the secretary was to say "The Board to inform the Members how the current state of affairs was arrived at and what plans the Board has to ensure RA-Aus is never again so challenged. It is not fully understood what is meant by ‘current state of affairs’ but it is thought to be in connection to the current situation with regards to the aircraft registration procedures." As per advice, they could have rung a board member. No AGM minutes. No Financial Statements. And you can't register an aircraft. In breach a number of laws, delegations revoked by CASA, ...but theboard don't see anything wrong! I shall misquote; "It is not fully understood why some malcontent children have used the constitution to ask us to explain. We will establish our authority by explaining to the children that they will have to wait. Then, having no dessert after dinner for two months, the children we are responsible for, will realise we are adults, and they, the membership, are not." dodo

This is becoming more pathetic by the day. Did you asked RA-Aus for the audit reports first? Or have you just given up on asking our lords and masters for any information? If you want a financial contribution towards the costs of information that should have been provided to the membership by RA-Aus, I would happily contribute. dodo

Gavin, If I have made up my mind on some issues, it is the following: - RA-Aus communications are appalling; - governance and regulatory compliance are poor; - that a General Meeting would be the best way to get the board to explain their perspective on these issues and their view of the way forward,and for members to assess these; - and that having the presidents position in question at that time is likely to make the meeting a farce, where that issue poisons other discussion. On the last point, I would prefer the president to be able to put forward his perspective on issues as president - if he is no longer president, his views are likely to be retrospective rather than prospective (and he is likely to feel he is being put on trial, rather than representing the board). However, it is obvious that the a resolution to the resignation question needs a solid foundation, and that is where I found your opinion did not appear to be coherent, and did not appear to be informed as to legislation under which RA-Aus operates. dodo

Sorry, I thought I would post again in slightly different terms: Does Gavin realise that the RA-Aus is governed by the Associations Incorporation Act 1991? If so, does he still think the advice he provided to us was correct? dodo PS And why is RA-Aus in breach of section 73 of that Act? And is RA-Aus in breach of section 71 of that Act? And what will that mean for the members he represents?

I find this hard to explain, but it seems to me that Gavin's explanation relies on the following: - that the definition of resignation relies on a written resignation, where email is not accepted. This opens questions as to when email is accepted for any purposes, and also questions as to what resignations in the past have been acted on by email? - that the Corporations Act (a Commonwealth Act) governs a territory Incorporated Association, where this is governed by it's own Act).. - that the board held a vote that was unnecessary & meant nothing, because it seemed like a good idea? I don't have a strong knowledge of any of the relevant legislation, but frankly, I find this hard to take seriously. It just doesn't smell right. We may split hairs over what can be accepted by email or not, and we could forever, but if we wouldn't accept written as being email, would we accept a cheque written in the side of a cow? That example does have a genuine (if USA- based) precedent. So your aircraft registration photos are accepted by email but the registration form isn't? Or only resignations of persons who are seen as Directors under the Corporations Act? And then the board seems to have therefore performed a some weird rite where they anointed the decision (which Gavin claims was already made by legislation)? This is either total confusion, or the deliberate creation of legal confusion to delay and cost money. I suspect the first - total confusion. Frankly, I believe this is rubbish, of no legal validity. dodo

I agree. That is why I set out the options I could see for members, none of which are ideal. And on the participation, well, I think some board members have been quoted as saying members don't participate because they just wish to fly. I don't totally disagree with that, but I believe (along with you) that useful participation is difficult, and this discourages participation. I didn't go to the meeting at Heck Field as it was too far. Technological solutions may be a future solution, but not the immediate future - ie the next meeting. Bluntly, my biggest concern is that lack of information means we can't easily form our individual opinions and concerns. If we could, we could propose changes where required, or oppose changes if we think they aren't required. For instance, if the issues were out in the open, you could vote your proxy, and wouldn't need to be present, and could have confidence that the discussion would be reported back to you. Not as good as being able to directly participate, but a lot better than the current situation. So my focus would be on getting better communication from the board. How we get that message through? I think it has been said often,but not clearly heard. dodo

Metalman2, I think you have pointed to one of the biggest difficulties. We simply have been told so little, it is difficult to propose useful solutions. What would be ideal would be for attendees to ask questions, then hear the board, then propose resolutions if required. However, with the paucity of information we have, and the geographic difficulties, the one thing we can do is to propose and provide questions in advance, and then have a series of resolutions to be proposed either; - regardless of the answers to questions; or - only if some answer does not meet some precondition. The second doesn't sound very practical, the first is very arbitrary, as the most serious problem has been lack of information on which to base a resolution. A third option would be to give your proxy to someone you trust who will be at the meeting. This may not be so simple either, as this requires someone you agree with to be there. Agree with on which issues? All? So maybe, as a start, we could discuss questions to be asked? I simply don't have any ideal solution as to how to translate the possible answers to these questions into resolutions. dodo

1 Unclear "several outstanding issues to be addressed" according to the Pres report of Oct 2012 in Sport Pilot, quoting the auditor? One comment from the Pres was that many aircraft files at RA-Aus are not compliant with the requirements of the 2007 Tech manual, implying new requirements in that revision. Rumour and innuendo suggest the requirements might include photographs of the aircraft are required showing compliance plates, rego numbers, etc. As you will have noted, we don't really know. 2 Unclear. One obvious observation would be that the October/November 2011 audit raised issues that had not been resolved by November 2012,during three or four follow up audits. A conclusion you might come to is that RA-Aus did not address issues raised, even through a number of follow up audits over a year, and CASA took the action to encourage compliance. 3 Unclear. The CEO obviously needed more time with his grandchildren, despite the situation RA-Aus is in. Maybe one of the grandchildren is ill. The technical manager, who was only hired a few months ago "is no longer with RA-Aus" according to the website, despite this being a time where RA-Aus needs a good technical manager. There is no indication that he needs to spend more time with his grandchildren. One conclusion the unkind might jump to, is that blame and recriminations are being thrown around. 4 YES! Your certificate is still valid. Your aircraft rego is still valid (in most cases). However, when your aircraft comes dues for renewal, you may not be re-registered,or it may take some time to be re-registered. And if RA-Aus has been pinged over aircraft registration, what is to say a pilot certificate audit may not occur, and what would be the outcome of that? In short, keep flying, because you can, for now. Summary: the board has told us very little, so we don't know much. But you can keep flying for now, dodo

I am not sure what you are getting at, especially the "Coulda, woulda, shoulda" What effective difference does it make between a board of management and a board of directors? Do you think all expenditure should be approved by the membership? Or some expenditure? Or are you just commenting that the financial reporting to members is deficient (when provided at all)? dodo

True - but what difference does that make? I am not sure who, within the board can authorise expenditure, or who is technically responsible for financial reporting (is it just the Treasurer, or the whole board?), but I imagine that the board of management is ultimately responsible. They can delegate to hired staff, or amongst themselves, but ultimately, they would appear to be responsible. Otherwise, who is responsible? dodo

Yes. The board should spend money as they think best (and not have to ask the membership for any particular approval), but they should then report it. The membership then gets a chance to decide whether or not the board is spending their money prudently on the basis of that reporting.. That would require that expenditure is set out in sufficient detail, and reported, neither of which have occurred. It may be that the unclassified expenses meet accounting standards, but you would hope that a board would go beyond the bare minimum set out in law. Instead they haven't even met that regulatory minimum. dodo

The membership don't get a say on every expenditure. For the board to commission a workshop on oversight would seem to me to be entirely sensible and reasonable, and it was reported to the membership quite reasonably. I don't have any idea what it cost, but it doesn't seem that our board oversight is satisfactory, so you could argue: - It was a waste of money,as the oversight is still poor; or - Oversight is poor, so we need something like this, so it was a sensible investment in the organisation. Take your pick! dodo

The March issue had a paragraph referring to a two day assurance workshop held last February to look at board oversight etc. Not an audit, by any means, but clearly a chance for the baord to look over themselves and look in the mirror a bit. I have no idea what the outcome was. dodo

My experience is with performance and financial audits, (none to do with aviation, but I think it applies regardless): There isn't a pass" or "fail", (except with financial statements, where they are accepted, qualified, adverse,etc. This doesn't apply outside financial statements.) With a performance audit, you just get a list of audit recommendations. So you really just read through the audit comments and recommendations, and the import of these can be a bit subjective. They are also usually very constrained, and in a semi-legalistic format, recording purely observations (hypothetical example - "in a number of cases, it was found that staff had authorised expenditure outside the framework of Regulation 45(a)3(b)2". This could mean f-all, or could allude to cases of fraud. You need to know your regulatory framework, and read between the lines) My feeling is that either the board was a bit naive, and didn't read carefully, or possibly that the follow up audits became more intrusive and started finding more. Either way, the audit recommendation quoted in the October magazine would have made me very nervous - the reference to more being required to address a year old audit. I think the whoever was responsible may not have any experience being audited, and didn't realise that you are supposed to address the issues before the first follow up audit, not after three follow ups! However, I read the magazine,and I never picked up that this was an ongoing saga. I must have just glossed over that bit. I wonder if the board was a bit the same, although you would hope they were a bit better informed and closed to events than I am. The audit exit interviews should have informed them,as these are verbal, and can be a bit more candid. dodo

Jan 2012: note this issue would be the first after the initial CASA audit Pres report: p7, (summarised and condensed): (Quote) "The audit went well in all areas except LSA aircraft" (rough summary) followed by a discussion of missing documentation, contacting owners, corrective action taken systems and procedures updated. There is a strong implication that all was corrected and all is now OK, but that this was timely reminder to everyone to get it right in future. At that stage RA-Aus had not received the written report, but were working from the audit exit interview of 27 November. Tech report: p47 Steve Bel devote a couple of pages to explaining the various registrations, LSA, E-LSA, C of As, how to register, transfer from GA/HGFA etc. Feb 2012: Pres report, p7: (verbatim and complete): "The final report from the CASA audit has been received and there were no surprises , with the concerns having already been identified at the exit brief. Most of the corrective actions have been completed and we are currently working through our systems and procedures to identify where improvements can be made. The CASA audit team will be revisiting in the near future to provide further guidance where required. The report was not all negative and there were some very positive comments received. Tech :nothing March 2012: Pres p7: nothing Tech - they doesn't appear to be a tech talk column in that issue.