TK58

You seem to be assuming everyone in GA land is a happy camper and has no desire for change/improvement. If that was true why does AOPA exist? There is value in a collective voice for those with common interests in any scenario in my view.

That's a good idea. Unfortunately RAAus is the only authoritative source for that information, but they seem to be unwilling or unable to provide it. The only other approach I can see is anecdotal - e.g. we know CTLS aircraft are affected and some (maybe all?) Pipistrels. Any others we know for sure?

Absolutley right Andy. I understand this time round there are 3 candidates in SQ for 2 positions. Everyone who votes (and I hope that's everyone who's eligible) needs to fill in all the squares or their vote could be wasted. BTW, I am one of those candidates. Anyone who wants to know more is welcome to contact me.

What about 95.10 aircraft? Is there a straightforward and cost effective path for them in this brave new world?

I was told by Steve Runciman in mid May that Dean is still assisting us.

Yes, there is more than one member of the current Board that, like Jim T, have been fighting a (so far) losing battle for sound governance and all the other things a competent Board should be doing. With luck (and enough motivated members who get off their a***es and vote for change), after the coming elections they'll no longer be the minority.

So 7 months after this debacle began it's CASA's fault we're still in crisis mode? Sorry, not buying that. The member rep's response just further highlights that our Board have failed to recognise the scale and complexity of the problem and to commit sufficient resources to its resolution. The revelation of anomalies in type acceptance certificates adds an extra dimension (and must be an absolute nightmare for the owners involved), but it's consistent with the root cause of the whole debacle - years of sloppy administration and poor oversight coming home to roost.

How's this for starters: - Most of them have no idea of the difference between governance (the role of the Board) and management (the role of the hired help) - The majority are content to be a rubber stamp after the event for decisions/actions taken by the Executive - They've allowed a situation to arise (again) where RAAus is days away from being uninsured - the current insurer has rejected the business as have 26 others. Insurers aren't stupid, they know a poorly governed organisation when they see one. - They allow the Executive to keep them in the dark about just about everything - At the very best they were asleep at the wheel in allowing thevregistration debacle to develop I could go on but I won't. Some of the current board members are not a waste of space. Unfortunately they're in the minority so nothing changes. We need to support them so they stay there until some new faces can be elected, altering the balance of power and changing things for the better. Hopefully member apathy (of which I've been guilty too) will be less of a factor in the elections this year.

Middo is the one we really need to see the back of. I'm convinced the rest (even SR) are either willingly or unwittingly dancing to his tune. I hear you can't talk to the staff at the office at present - the volume of the popping champagne corks has made the telephones unusable!

John, I couldn't agree more with your views on this. In my understanding the purpose of introducing HF training/certification was to address (and reduce) the number of incidents - serious or otherwise - by ensuring all RA-Aus pilots have an understanding of their own role in the safety of the aircraft they pilot. The numbers suggest that aim hasn't been achieved. There could be any number of reasons, the syllabus being among them. It could also be that the public perception is true and there are too many cowboys in RA-Aus aircraft. Whatever the causes, we'll never know for sure unless the Board of RA-Aus - our representatives - get off their asses and take a serious look at the issue. If things continue as they are, there is a growing risk that someone (CASA, insurers, lawyers, Minister - pick one or more) will step in and shut the whole show down, grounding us all. As for the current stance on reporting of incidents, it's a joke. There should be no reason a basic statement of facts can't be published. I am campaigning to be elected to the Board (as a SQ rep) and if successful this is one of the things I'll be pushing hard for. Have a look at how other similar bodies (e.g. ASRA) handle this issue. It can be done and it should.

Sounds like there's an expectation regos are going to be backlogged for several months yet

There's a flyin at Inglewood from 26-28 April. The motel told me about it when I got stuck there for the night on the way home from Natfly. I can recommend the Inglewood Motel.

Hi Escadrille, My name is Tony King.

Well said Jim. I plan to stand in South Qld. In my view the Board would be more representative of the interests of members if it were composed of more ordinary members (such as myself) and fewer people who derive an income from recreational aviation. A majority of current Board members have some form of income from RAAus related activities (e.g. flying schools), however I derive no income from aviation related activities. Of much greater importance is the need for RAAus to establish a culture of open, transparent and timely communications and processes - including prompt reporting of established facts in relation to accidents and incidents . My background in IT, business requirements analysis and project management has given me the skills to make a strong contribution to the improvements our organisation needs. If elected, in addition to working to improve openness, I will seek to increase the engagement of the immense pool of talent within the RAAus membership to augment the talents of the Board and the staff. I will work to ensure the organisation attracts, retains, develops and supports talented individuals in management and administrative roles. There is a need for a strong performance management framework for all staff to ensure training needs are identified, poor performance is addressed and good performance is recognised and encouraged. There also is a pressing need for RAAus's systems to be updated, both in terms of technology and processes. If elected I will work to ensure these vital elements of any successful organisation are all they can and should be for RAAus. I also will work to ensure the Board is focussed on developing sound policies and governance structures, leaving the day to day running of the organisation to those employed for the task. RAAus is the largest sports aviation body in the country by a big margin. It should be the leading sports aviation body too - the one others look to as an example of a well run and successful organisation. If elected I intend to work to achieve that goal consistent with the interests of the members in South Queensland..

I thought the GM achieved very little. Geoff's talk was the highlight and if the Board keeps moving in the direction he's pushing there may be hope yet. However the President's chairing of the meeting and management of the time was abysmal, both the Pres and Sec spent most of their time talking to issues they should have let the CEO and Ops Manager speak to. They did let the Tech Manager speak to the registration issue, which I think was a tactic to deflect criticism/hard questions from themselves. It was revealed there are over 400 aircraft grounded at present due to registration issues. About 250 of those are pending info from the owners, the rest are waiting for RAAus to do something. I didn't hear any explanation as to why the Canberra GM was told 100 (in Feb) and suddenly it's over 400. Seems to me either the problem has gotten worse, we were lied to in Canberra, or those responsible don't have an adequate grip on the situation. Either way it's beyond unsatisfactory. Michael Apps did a good job of the financial report. He clearly has a good grip on the finances. It would have been better though if he had prepared either a handout or something up on the screen rather than just reading out the numbers. Sadly he's resigned as Treasurer for family reasons. I hope Myles can maintain (dare we hope for improve?) the standard Michael has set. Middo spoke about the changes in the new Ops Manual. There's a rejigging of endorsements. No more NW, HP, LP or HF endorsements (although human factors will remain in the syllabus). They're also talking about bringing in maintenance training as part of the basic syllabus. This is to counter media and coroner criticism of people being able to do their own maintenance with no training. The new CEO got 30 seconds right at the end when more than half those in attendance had already left. Overall I was unimpressed with the meeting and felt the Pres and Sec were poorly prepared. My feeling is that if this meeting was representative of the quality of their work it's no wonder RAAus is in the trouble it's in. I remain convinced the best way to fix it is to get new talent onto the Board.

Incidentally, a friend got ramp checked at Natfly (advisory only) and one of the issues they raised was although he had the right charts, they weren't marked up with his flight plan.

I disagree. In my understanding 'shall' means mandatory and 'should' is advisory. REastwood makes a very valid point though. If you're getting ramp checked the interpretation of the bureaucrat in front of you is what's going to matter. In preparation for my trip to Natfly I emailed RAAus Ops Manager and explicitly asked about the use of Oz Runways. The response (about a week before this announcement) was that paper charts were required as the primary source of navigation information but that the iPad was a permitted alternative for ERSA, etc. and as a secondary. They went on to add that iPhones are not acceptable at all. I ran into both Jill (RAAus Assistant Ops Manager) and Zane (RAAus Ops Manager) at Natfly and asked if the CASA approval had changed that advice. Jill said no, the approval is for OzRunways as a data source, not a navigation tool. Zane said you can now use an iPad as primary and a second iPad as secondary if you wish. A short discussion ensued with the conclusion that clarification will need to be sought from Kevin Scrimshaw (CASA). If the people whose job it is to understand the rules and ensure we comply are confused (which appears to be the case) what hope for the rest of us?

Thinking about it. Weather doesn't look good for getting to Natfly from SQ so might head north instead. I did my basic training at Starke Field with Pat McGrath about 12 years ago.

Interesting how these stories evolve in the first couple of hours. ABC's initial post said the pilot had been recovered but his condition was unknown. Sad to see another 2 lost. It's turning into a really bad year.

I know a couple of guys out that way. Anyone know who it was?

This really is getting to the root cause in my opinion. There will always be personalities, egos, politics and disgruntled members no matter who is on the Board or the Executive. That's not the issue. The real issue is that RAAus has grown so big so quickly and being managed by a Board made up of volunteers is no longer the right model for an organisation of this size. There's only so much it's reasonable to expect of volunteers. Further, the fact they are popularly elected (or elected unopposed in some cases) is no guarantee they have the capability to manage the organisation. If this was an organisation where what the members wanted was the primary issue then maybe we could continue with the volunteer Board management model, but the reality is that the primary task for RAAus is to meet the legal requirements necessary to protect the members' flying privileges. It's not an aero club or a flying school, it's a body charged with administering recreational aviation on behalf of the regulator. And doing that for a fleet of over 3,500 aircraft and well over 10,000 pilots requires skilled and professional people at all levels. An elected Board is necessary to protect the members' interests, but the Board should be an oversight function, not running the organisation. We need to separate management and governance. And as Kaz has suggested, they need professional guidance and support, not on aviation but on things like business and governance. TK

Aircraft Pilots doesn't work for me - makes me think it's an ATPL community, which it clearly isn't. If it's between the two, Recreational Flying gets my vote.

Thanks Dazza. I'll certainly be posting here when my strip's operational and visitors will be welcome.

Hi All, Been lurking on this site for 2 or 3 years and finally decided to join. My aviation has been pretty much on hold for a few years due to other commitments. Getting back into it now. I have a recreational pilot certificate with about 110 hours total experience. I'm not current right now but plan to fix that in the next few weeks. I also have a student PPL and about 25 hours of my total experience (mostly before I got my recreational certificate) is in either a 152 or a Tomahawk. My recreational experience is almost entirely in taildragger Lightwings. I live at Gatton (no, not at the airpark) and recently purchased a block of land in the area big enough for a 650m strip. Plan is to move there in the next year or so. I'm currently building 2 aircraft - a Bede BD-4C (4 seater, 200hp, 2500lb MTOW, 140kt cruise) and a KR-2S. Not sure either is going to be really suitable for a 650m grass strip and realistically both are still a few years away so I'm looking at options right now. Gotta build a hangar and a house first though! Anyway, enough about me. I'm sure I'll get to know many of you over time and might even meet some of you at flyins and what not. Happy aviating. Tony