gandalph

Yep. And they didn't

It could be that the RAA is trying to cover that thing inside the back of their trousers that we are not allowed to call by its common name, by trying to blame CASA for jumbling their terminology but I think I side with Jem, Bruce and Oscar on this one. I think the CASA noodle brains were in such a rush to get the revised instrument out before it was automatically ceased that they failed to adequately proof read it and ensure that what they said in one document was reflected in the other. They should hang their heads in shame. A half way competent editor (or in CASA's case, a halfway competent senior manager )would have sent it back for re-writing before putting it before the executive for their signature. The Commonwealth's Solicitor needs a bollocking as well for letting that rubbish through, although the ComSol isn't renowned for always getting it right either "Revised information is required due to confusion resulting from inconsistent terminology by CASA between the internal CASA Jabiru Engine Reliability - Analysis Report and the newly published Jabiru Instrument CASA 65-16, which was enacted 1 July 2016."

I thought all their melamine went into their baby food milk substitute formula.

Geoffreywh was it a first life engine or a rebuild?

An interesting review SrPilot, I look forward to seeing Kaz's take on it.........

I would like to believe I'm wrong but I think it is unlikely that CASA will simply look the other way and pretend it never happened or that it's all better now. If they simply let the instrument lapse they would need to explain what has changed to make the instrument no longer required. We may get a revised instrument with some relaxation of the restrictions for engines that have been modified to a specified standard but I can't see them simply lifting the restriction. That is not likely. They'd have to save face protect arse. Apologies to the moderators for my intemperate language.

Yes. I noted that they have just recently been taken over by an larger concern so the new bosses (and bean counters) might be exercising their power. However, while it might just be one company, it only takes one firm to call "wolf!" to cause a panic in the community. Hold tight!

I couldn't find anything on Assett Insure's website about this issue. Has anyone checked back with the sources to determine if it is indeed true? ( a bit hard to do that on a weekend I guess) Was Geoffreywh's machinist insured with Assett Insure? I'm not doubting in any way what Jetjr or Geoffreywh have related in their posts, just wondering whether the action is limited to one company or is more widespread. Time will tell I guess.

No. But I recall the boss getting toey about topics that might damage this site's stats so I sort of expected that talk of Pauline would be shunted. Doesn't worry me.

This has kinda drifted away from aviation. I thought the boss wanted this sort of conversaton shunted to the "off topic". ??

That's a lifting poddy

Slow news day.

Just ask any woman.....

That was Keith's descriptor, see posts 119 & 122. I quoted him but I distanced myself from his description.

Turbs I wasn't checking membership credentials, someone from the office was doing that. I am not from the office and I've never been an employee of the RAA. So I can't comment on your allegation about non members voting. I had no authority to do that and it didn't occur to me that non-members might have infiltrated the meeting. Do you have some evidence that that was the case? I didn't think I was lecturing.

No Keith you can't. Well you could, but it would be just that: imaginary fantasy and unsupported supposition. I went to the Queanbeyan meeting as a fairly new member of RAA and a newcomer to this site so I wasn't a proponent for one side or the other. I abstained from voting because I didn't feel I knew enough of the background to make a reasoned judgement (sorry Don!). But I did listen to the arguments put both from the floor and from the Board and I reported back to my colleagues on the arguments put and on the tenor of the meeting. I don't believe I've said on this site or anywhere else for that matter, that I supported or opposed the proposals put at Queanbeyan BUT I have argued that the outcome of that meeting reflected the wishes of those members who took the time to vote and that in a democratic process we should accept the majority vote. I have spent a good part of my working life writing reports on what I saw, what I heard, what I smelled, what I read and making findings that affected peoples lives based on those criteria alone, NOT on what I felt or believed. Keith, if you're going to make judgements here about my integrity you should perhaps take the time to get to know me better!

It was. Were you there? One of "the Mob" or an innocent like me?

Yes Turbs. Both days. I was taking notes for some absent colleagues.

Keith, that's not unusual, negativity on social media forums such as this one is the norm. Posters rarely take the time to write to tell how well things are going or how happy they are with their governing body or bodies. It's human nature that we keep silent about the good things and complain about the bad things. That's why it's not wise to assume that social media forums are truly reflective of the views of the majority. How much praise does RAA or CASA get on this site? Can they both be doing everything wrong? Keith, Keith Keith! Hadn't proxies been invented in time for the Queanbeyan meeting? Was it really only votes from the floor of that meeting that got up? Really?? Well it was, after all, the Recreation Association of AUSTRALIA, so you'd expect that the most of the votes, and the candidates for the board would be from Australia..... Have I missed something? You're probably right but we keep coming back to the fact that the votes cast at Queanbeyan including proxies don't support your view. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong but it does mean that your view didn't have the necessary support to carry the day.p.s. Thanks for the Geography lesson, I'll keep than on my kneeboard when I do my next Navex.

Keith, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the Queanbeyan meeting was just a "mob" to use your word, who wanted change for the sake of change? Are the 'Queanbeyan "Mob" stuck as to what to do next, or am I misinterpreting your post? Can you clarify what you mean? And are you saying that the Queanbeyan meeting was a hostile takeover or that the May 14th meeting was a hostile takeover? What do you mean by "they are now stuck with their next move"? Who is stuck? The hostile takeover people? The Board? The membership? It might be more accurate and a whole less emotive to say that at the Queanbeyan meeting members exercised their rights. If you are calling the May 14 meeting a hostile takeover then words fail me. For me, it still comes down to the numbers (at both meetings)and the results of the votes. I don't have the figures from the Queanbeyan meeting but I seem to recall that the motions put by the membership to clean out the old board were pretty convincingly carried, but you might have a different recollection. At the May 14th Meeting 85% of the votes cast were in favour of the proposal to change the structure of the Association. I'd characterize that as a significant majority of votes by involved members in favour of change. I struggle to see how you, or anyone else, can characterize it as a hostile takeover. Who do you say has taken us over? If you want to know the current state of (I'm assuming you mean financial) affairs, the 6 monthly report finance report to December 2015 is available in the members portal of the RAA website: Home - RAA I suppose, if you wanted an up-to-the minute status report you could contact the office and ask for an update: Phone: 02 6280 4700 or email admin @ raa.asn.au or ceo @ raa.asn.au Regards G

You'll need to watch out for the onset of flutter on that front strap.....

Stepping back in time to the Queanbeyan special meeting, members called that meeting because they were very unhappy with the management of the Association and they wanted change. Most of the old guard were voted out and the new brooms were voted in and given a mandate to change the way the Association was heading and the way it worked. We didn't give the new board specific direction, we just asked to make it better and to make it work properly. Moving forward a bit to the general meeting at Natfly a couple of years ago when the then treasurer Jim Tatlock laid it out pretty clearly that the RAA was in dire straits and would be insolvent in, (I think he said) 3 to 5 years if major changes weren't made to the way the association was run. I seem to recall that he proposed a range of changes to a) keep the association solvent and b) return the Association to good financial health. If I remember correctly, his report was accepted by those attending and that he was given a round of applause after his presentation. Fast forward a couple of years and the Board has been working to implement Jim's proposals. That has meant that some things had to change and inevitably that some members would not be comfortable with those changes. That is always the nature of change. Now people are up in arms complaining that the board is making those changes they see as necessary for the survival (and improvement) of the Association; those changes we asked for but didn't specify. It seems to me that at Queanbeyan we asked that the governance of the be dramatically improved, that we modernise and improve the systems the Association used to improve registrations, and that the new Board do what was necessary to keep the Association afloat and make it better for Members. There was general disapproval that the Association was sitting on reserves of 3 Million and that that money was not being used for the benefit of the membership. So the new board spent money to upgrade, as asked, improve management, as asked, and do whatever was needed to stop the Association from going broke, as asked. Now we are complaining that the Board has spent some of the reserves, determined a budget and formulated a strategic plan to keep our organisation going and STILL people aren't happy (well about 15% of those who bothered to vote).

Neil, the meeting on 14 May wasn't an AGM it was a special meeting to consider and vote one resolution only. I don't believe there was any cover up or gagging of the Board. Members present at the meeting were given plenty of opportunity to ask questions. Hard to see any gagging of either members or board members.

RAA as we knew it under Tizzard and Runciman has ceased to exist. That era ended at Queanbeyan and the new executive received the LARGE majority of the votes on May 14th this year from members who could be bothered to vote. It's a bit over a fortnight since that vote was taken and it seems that, according to some here, the sky is already falling. There will be an AGM in September this year. Find another 850 like minded members and vote the current board out. Until then, let's go with the majority vote.

Emotive claptrap