David Isaac

It is disappointing that there is so much misinformation being promulgated about our incorporated entity. The change in the structure has NO negative impact on the rights and privileges of members; my local aeroclub has been a company limited by guarantee since its inception in the late 70s. We have always been incorporated it is just that we are incorporated under the Corporations Act and Regulations instead of incorporated under the Associations Act. The directors are NOT paid and can never be paid unless a resolution by the members agrees. The statement that "The change in the structure of the board means that never again will a fellow Territorian sit at the board table and input into decisions: Even if he has PhD in aeronautical engineering and a string of business degrees!" completely lacks integrity because anyone can stand for the Board even if certain characteristics may be desirable, ultimately you and I as members decide who we vote on the Board; not the sitting board. It is difficult to understand what would motivate you to suggest that ..."...the board will now be dominated 'skills-based' Canberrans who are part of the inner clique, and if positions are salaried, it will change the altruism of serving the organisation, and the competition for positions. Vested interests will doubtless become yet more vested, now that money is involved". When the information you base this statement on is just simply NOT correct. We the members decide where our organization goes, we can either be a part of the bitchy problem or get off our negative asses and do something positive to ensure we maintain our right to fly. Yes right ... unless we are so involved in bitching, it is taken from us by the one and only organisation who I am absolutely convinced doesn't want us flying. CASA.

There was some discussion on the latest emailed newsletter from RAAus that some joint discussions are in progress between RAAus and SAAA. Hopefully that will be fruitful. SAAA used to run some great educational events on the various aspects of aircraft building and maintenance at what was once called AusFly.

Camp David could be a reference point .....

I actually agree with you Hargraves, I was implying that one of the reasons J may have moved away from sensible convention was weight and they probably didn't have the money or maybe the inclination to do the research.

Yes and yes ... spot reserved.

Ausfly at Narromine Phil. Now called Oz-Kosh. 7th, 8th, & 9th October. An annual event put on by the SAAA and now shared with RAAus as of last year. A great event and a great location. Usually good weather because it is west of the divide.

weight ... weight ... weight and weight. Jabiru have had a serious weight advantage but at what appears great cost. Lycoming and Continental in particular are not as constrained by the weight issues that RAA aircraft are and they have the advantages of $MMs in investments and research in engine design and decades of experience that Jabiru don't. So Jabiru have to learn the hard way when they depart from aeroengine conventions I guess. Sounds like a simple analysis, but I think we all agree it is far from that.

Ausfly Narromine ... Yep Derek, I'll be there setting up Camp David ... LOL as we did last year. Hope to get there a day ahead this time.

Fire is one of the most terrifying things in an aircraft. Kill the 'Master' electrical switch as well Lyle. If you don't have one fit one and make sure it disconnects the alternator as well or modify the alternator and kill the excitation circuit which will kill the alternator output. Electrical fires are likely and the Master switch is an essential safety device. If you have an engine extinguisher make sure the engine compartment is sealed (cowl flaps closed) and Fuel and electrics 'off' before you dump it. Remember dilution of extinguishing agents ocurrs rapidly at speed; you will need a large amount well dispersed around the engine. Use it wisely. It may be your first defense, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it working unless the design is good. A dive with the cowl flaps open and fuel and electrics off may work to extinguish the fire as a last resort. A rapid side slipping decent even past Vne would be my choice if the fire was established; side slipping will tend to keep the heat off the fire wall. If there is no fuel or power it seems reasonable that you could have a good chance of getting it out. In any case there will be little left of the aircraft if the fire is established at altitude so Vne wouldn't rate too much unless I got the fire out then I would care about speed. Then you have to find a suitable landing spot .... Just some loose thoughts on the matter. No one really knows what would happen other than it would be a very unpleasant experience.

The RAA article unfortunately confused the two type of Li batts. They called a Lithium Iron Phosphate battery a Lithium ION Phosphate. Pity, that is one article that should have been technically correct.

Yeah you sure are right about the big boys. But RAAus is a not for profit co limited by guarantee, a far cry from the big boys. The only interests to protect are the members.

Keith, RAAus is a member based organisation whether it is an incorporated association or a company Ltd by guarantee. The members have the same rights and the directors of both are also members. I don't get your point ... In fact I would argue that members rights are better protected in a company Ltd by guarantee because company boards are accountable to the Corporations Act and Regulations. Members can therefore have a little more clout if it turns pear shaped.

Cant argue with that Tubz. I am sure we all want what you would like to see.

And if you have 7 it only takes 4 to pass a motion, a real nice clique of 4 to run the entire RAAus. I understand your concern, but where do we stop and have some measure of confidence in who we ALL (under the new constitution) vote in as directors.

Ian there is NO requirement to hold a special meeting to put up a special resolution, therefore there is no requirement to get 100 signatures. The 100 signatures are only required if MEMBERS want to call a general meeting. ANY member (with a seconder) can put a special resolution to the Board and the Board is required to put that special resolution to a member vote at the next general meeting called by the directors. They have no choice, all it takes is two members and a good argument. There is NO 'extreme force' involved.

Ian, I am having difficulty understanding your issue with the above statement. 3 directors do NOT decide how many directors there will be. The 3 hold office in a caretaker mode and MUST call an election to take the board to a minimum of 5 before the end of the year. They can do that by calling a general meeting or an Anual General Meeting. But they MUST call an election. So the only directors who can call an increase over 5 after the interim election are those 5 (or 6 if they chose 6) after the election and they are limited to a max of 7 under the new constitution; additionally the members can increase the directors to any number they see fit by special resolution at any time. I just don't see an issue, personally I am happy with either 5 or 7; there is a argument to support 7 in preference and an argument that 5 is sufficient.

Well You did a better job than I ever could have. As I said in an earlier post I would ring the Preso to discuss this and we have had a preliminary email exchange. I was disappointed to learn that it is alleged that Rod had supported all the board resolutions on the new constitution right up to the final draft and now is promoting a NO vote based on untruthful information at a level that indicates a complete lack of understanding in a number of areas. I have great difficulty with this kind of behaviour from an elected individual. Perhaps Rod may like to provide an explanation on here as to what is really going on ... Why he supported all the board resolutions and now after the 21 day notice period is gone is standing against a decision he voted to accept as a board member. I don't have a problem with a dissenting view as long as that dissenting view is known at board level, however, to support reform remaining silent at board level and to then without further consultation torpedo the process, is irresponsible and unprofessional and certainly not what I would expect from someone I elected. Maybe there is an obscure reason ... Let us here it Rod; otherwise I allege that what you have posted is mischievous and irresponsible.

I can't speak for the night owl, but suspect that is not what he meant and certainly not what I would have expected from the board. However, it would have been helpful for example to have given the opposing view on transferring from Inc Assoc. to Ltd, in that way the advantages of going to Ltd may have been a little clearer if you get what I mean.

Rod, Don, myself and a number of others drafted the resolution that saw that clause accepted, it was because of that resolution we were able to call the general meeting at Queanbeyan in 2012. The new constitution is the same and rightly so. BUT THE MEMBERS DO NOT NEED to call a general meeting to put a resolution for constitutional change. So you don't need 100 members to make a change, you are misleading the members in implying so. Any member can put up a special resolution for change and it must be put to all the members in accordance with the constitution at the next general meeting called by the Board. Did you raise any of these matters with the Board at the time these matters were discussed? There are a couple of other matters I consider you are incorrect on but I don't have time tonight to respond, I have to catch a 6-00am flight to Lala land ... LOL

There are a number of incorrect statements about the constitution in Rod's statements, but in fairness to him I suggest he was referring to earlier versions. For example it does not take 100 members to put up a special resolution and force the board to call a meeting. There are a couple of others, like where he states the Board will be paid; that cannot happen unless by resolution of the members. But Rod's point is valid, there is a reasonable argument to get it right before we vote on it. The more this goes on the better it may be for the Board to cancel the 14 May meeting and enter into more consultation so the resolution can be reput to the AGM. It would actually save some money, it would no longer need a special meeting just for the resolution. We have an AGM every year. I need to talk to the Preso and see what the general feeling is.

Kasp, I don't countenance that concept for a singe minute. The Board is way more professional than that and the very thing they stood against when they took office. There will be legitimate CASA induced technicality for sure. Chin up buddy, keep talking and get on to the RAA and sort the issue with them.

You are correct, I have the disgraceful document somewhere. It was sent to me as I was a Board nominee at the time. BUT, it no longer exists in that form thanks to Don, so no longer applies and will NOT apply to the new corporate structure.

No, it is NOT and neither is it in the current constitution. It was a BS document drafted by a previous secretary that was never accepted by a formal resolution of the Board and wasn't even an official bylaw at the time. It was bullied upon all new Board members back then as Ian knows. Ian and John Mckeown were the only board members who refused to sign it at the time and they tried to bully John as well. Don Ramsey was the one who called the Board to account and had it properly changed as one of the first 'new blood' directors.

Hopefully not, when we can elect better qualified people from a larger gene pool that is NOT restricted to one or two per region. A smaller Board of shall we say 'experienced people' should keep the integrity stakes higher and be more efficient, but there are NO guarantees in life. we just need to set up the best structure we can.

Tubz, I think you will find Don signed an agreement to maintain those things that had a quality of confidence as confidential, quite reasonable, but I would argue unnecessary. Directors have a duty to maintain 'confidentiality'. He didn't sign a 'Gag order'. Don, please clarify.