gandalph
-
Posts
1,269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by gandalph
-
It was. I just thought Oscar was being far too reasonable and out of character so I thought I'd give him a friendly serve. TP had been very quiet so I thought I'd step in as temporary Oscar harrasser Neither of is did!
-
Cheese! Who's bean st'ring your pot? You really are pasta artichoke. Lettuce call it quince.
-
Clear but still wrong.
-
Don't go beeting the messenger, that's borscht!
-
Well to be pedantic, I think you'll find a larger cross section of RAA members mowing their lawns, watching telly, flying their planes and even being members of the RAA, doing anything but contributing to the Rec Flying site. Sad but true. This site certainly presents a cross section of aviation interests. It is A voice but not THE voice. But we seem to have drifted pretty much off topic.
-
Suggesting that because someone visits a site, their views are represented by that site is like saying that all readers of the Daily Telegraph have their views represented by the Tele. It's just not true. I sometimes read the Canberra Times but it would be wildly inaccurate to say that they represented my views in any way. I sometimes even dip into the Murdoch press (forgive me colleagues for I have sinned) but I do that mainly to see just how wrong they can be. Suggesting that you represent the voice of the lurkers, the sporadic posters, the keyboard warriors etc. is just wishful thinking. This site (enormously valuable, as I said before) is but one lens through which a small facet of aviation may be viewed. It not the Hubble of aviation.
-
Absolutely correct! This site is a valuable resource with contributions from enormously experienced and talented people but it is not, despite its masthead, the voice of recreational flying. To suggest that it represents the view of the majority of recreational flyers like saying that pprune represents the majority view of G.A and professional flyers. It is just puffery. They like us represent the vocal minority. We, like they, are the squeaky wheel of aviation. Sorry Ian, I don't mean to denigrate this site but really, we are a small itch on a much larger bum.
-
That would be "currant bunfight". You just can't trust spellcheck to get it right!
-
Don, I understand that and I understood that from the start. I should perhaps have made it clear that I was referring the the 6 newsletters sent to all members that set out the case and arguments for change. I feel that it would benefit members to be fully informed of both sides of the case and those newsletters would have been an ideal vehicle for that. I can see how you could think that my closing comment in post #132 (see below) was asking you personally to put the opposing argument and I apologise for not being clearer in my intent. I should have said something like: "Don, can you lobby the President or CEO to do that please?" Again, apologies for the confusion
-
Thanks Rod, and Thanks Kasper for following up.
-
Pre-approved or pre-discussed? I don't see how the directors could pre-approve something without a holding formal vote on the matter. However I sincerely hope that Directors would receive, well in advance of any meeting, comprehensive briefings on proposals to be put to the Board and I would hope that Directors would discuss those briefings amongst themselves well in advance of the Board meeting so as to allow them to make a well informed and reasoned decision. Heavens! they might even use that time to canvass opinions from the membership if the sensitivity of the matter allows. To arrive at a meeting and be confronted with an agenda of items to discuss without allowing prior cogitation would be very poor practice and would reflect very badly on the CEO and administrative staff. You are correct, the membership might elect a bunch of rogues and vagabonds, fools or ego-trippers, but given the minuscule perks of office offered to candidates, we are not likely to attract the treasure hunters to the executive. The fools and ego-trippers could be another problem entirely. Note to all: I am NOT pointing the finger at any Board members, past, present, or presumptive future nominees when I speak of rogues, vagabonds, fools or ego-trippers.
-
Ian, I'm guessing that was Middo? Most definitely one of the"Old Guard". I have much more faith in the new team's ethics.
-
Yes but Neil, but with respect mate, that was then - (6 years ago). Things can change. I was asking about the current proposal, not about the existing system.
-
Furphy is an emotive word Turbs, however you are welcome to your opinion. Despite your outrage that I would dare to speak of an association that only one of us belong to in the way I did, I am happy to stay with the comparison I made. You might not share my opinion. C'est la vie.
-
I am not in favour of change for the sake of change, and like most people I am sometimes uncomfortable with change because I am basically a conservative person. BUT I have enough to faith in the Board of the RAA in it's current make-up to believe that they have the best interests of the Association, but more importantly of the members at heart in proposing these changes. I believe that the RAA is doomed to extinction if we continue to run it as though it is a country cricket club. The current Board, in my opinion, have demonstrated a level of integrity greater than in earlier iterations, and for that reason I'll probably accept that the changes they propose will generally benefit the membership. I also believe that those bits that don't work can and will be fixed in good time. However, I still wish the Board had seen fit to put forward the case against the proposed changes so that we all had the opportunity, if we wished, to make a fully informed decision. (Don, that can still be done.)
-
Policies are much easier to amend than constitutions.
-
Is this written into the proposed constitution or is it an assumption? Fact or assumption? or are you referring to convention? Is it written into the proposed constitution that board members are gagged? That's a genuine question. If it is written into the new constitution then I would be concerned. If it's not, then please indicate that you assume that such would be the case.
-
Some very interesting information in the link below. I would be VERY cautious about mounting a camera anywhere in the airstream that might affect airflow over control surfaces Some people seem to stick the cameras anywhere, giving more consideration to the shot that to the possible effect on the flying qualities of the aircraft. One poster in the link below noted an eight knot increase in his plane's stall speed when he fitted a camera to his wing! For sensible external placement have a look at the FlightChops videos on You-Tube. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=888927&highlight=camera -
Ian, 1. I wasnt playing the man. I put your name in my reply so that people would know which argument I felt was weak 2.I didn't ridicule your post or your argument - I simply said it was the weakest one I had seen. 3. I am very sorry that you felt that by commenting that your argument was weak I was belittling you. I was not. 4 It was MY opinion. It still is BTW. Finally, if you thought my comment about Headmasters was directed at you, then you are mistaken. The Headmaster knows who I was talking about.
-
It seems to work pretty well in places like superior courts where there are several Justices hearing a case and one (or more) may offer dissenting views but are not under any pressure to resign. Perhaps we are thinking too narrowly here? How does a national organisation that has, as one of its roles, lobbying the Federal and State Governments for the betterment of it's members (e.g. the NRMA) manage the conflict of having directors elected by , and therefore representing various constituencies? There seems to be an argument being put forward that a director would be in breach of corporate law in that case. Surely our directors MUST put forward in board discussions, the representations made to them by their constituents?
-
Ah! The administrator thinks I was being funny when I called his argument weak. No Ian, I was being quite serious. I hope you're not going to follow the Headmaster's trend of believing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him is in some way funny.
-
Kasper your "show me one example" seems to rely on the presumption that because it hasn't happened, it can't/won't happen. That argument founders if you consider the presumed Reserve Powers of monarchy or the Govenor General and my previously mentioned convention regarding supply . They are conventions that hadn't been used before, then along came Malcolm and John and the rest is history. The fact (or presumption) that something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done.
-
Well that's about the most feeble argument against the proposal I've yet seen Ian.
-
The Oxford dictionary has its primary definition of the noun Convention as "A way that something is usually done." It is not company law. But it is "generally accepted behaviour". It can be ignored if it is believed there is a valid reason to so do. A Board member who continually leaks Board matters could expect to receive the general disapproval of the rest of the Board and would probably be seen by the shareholders as untrustworthy with an appropriate electoral response when he next stood for election. I would hope, and I'm pretty confident, given this Boards demonstrated commitment to consulting with the membership and keeping us informed, that on contentious matters they will seek guidance from the general membership. Having said that, I am disappointed that the Board has not put forward the arguments against the proposed changes. The "convention" was that the Senate would not deny supply to an elected government. But we now know that Convention can be ignored
-
I wonder why he didn't send it to all members. I, for one, would welcome an alternative view from the Board (or a Board member) to bring some informed balance to the discussion. I hope your correspondent agrees to your request.
