Oscar

Miniature Arts degrees ( of which I have one..)?

It's taken him several years to get me trained.... but he takes his 'Hangar dog' duties seriously, being both QA and Security for the re-build project. There's nothing quite like having your groin bunted hard while torquing down the engine mount bolts, to get your attention..

Not since Chicxulub - but you might take note that Clive's Dinosaurs have ceased to operate..

Nope. I have no dog in this fight.... and my dog shows no inclination to want to fly anyway, though he does enjoy sleeping in a place that is precisely calculated to provide the most inconvenience to people working on my aircraft..

Turbs, if you want to look at the 'ego' question, those who know the history of RAA from its transition from the AUF will point a finger at one individual in particular. Someone who came TO RAA from a very unspectacular career in CASA - not one who left RAA and joined CASA. The current Constitution did nothing to prevent that happening, and frankly, without examining it in detail, I am not sure that the proposed changes will do a lot to change that situation. HOWEVER: though I have NOT examined the details, I suspect that the law actually allows more avenue for redress for inadequate (or worse) performance for Directors of a company than it does for members of the Board of an Association. I happily yeild the field here to those with better knowledge. If that is the case, then I suggest that there is more safeguarding of Member interests in the proposed new form for RAA, than exists at the moment.

Russ, I don't have ANY answer to that. As I said early in ONE of the threads on this subject, since I'm not a current member, I haven't seen all of the stuff coming from RAA, and it certainly seems that what I am assuming has been a genuine attempt to provide on-going information as these changes have been developed, has resulted in people becoming unsure if this has proceeded in an orderly and well-thought out manner. That may - or may not - have been a good strategy; consultation will always produce a wide range of responses and without a vote, there is no genuine way to assess whether those responses are truly indicative of the 'democratic' process, or simply an example of 'squeaky wheels making the most noise'. And by saying the latter, I do NOT intend to denigrate the opinions of those on either side of the debate. It's never going to be the case that ALL members of RAA agree that 'she's right'. That's the nature of democratic process! One only has to look at the range of opinions on ANY of the hot topic issues for our Federal Government to see that any proposition gets responses ranging across a wide spectrum... and ultimately, with our 'democratic' process, the vote will tell how acceptable the grab-bag of policies from any side is acceptable to the populace. I have to say, that I consider Don Ramsay's continual flow of information to be admirable, in terms of effort at the very, very least. I personally have a slightly different view of what I'd like to see as the composition of the RAA management, and I believe that RAA could benefit from even more radical change to its whole operational milieu than is being proposed, but I do think that the general thrust of the proposed changes is positive for the future of RAA. If I had a vote - which I don't - I'd vote YES, and then become involved in the process of fine-tuning the result through the use of Special Resolutions etc. I DO believe that the current form of RAA has proven to be both expensive and regressive, and it has led to serious (and expensive) problems for members. Is there anybody who would promote the Runciman/Tizzard regime as 'good' for RAA? Those who appreciate the history of RAA will know that a major quantity of the serious f$ck-ups with things like CASA audits and financial control and the extremely high exposure to vastly expensive legal matters (a bullet only dodged due to a fortuitous Judicial ruling) were facilitated by a Constitution that allowed such matters to happen. From what I have seen, my personal position is that the propositions to come before members of RAA are - on balance - an improvement. If I were a member - and I will shortly become one again - I will want to see refinements. But - most of all - I will want to see that the organisation is operating in an efficient and competent manner so that whenever I take off, I can have confidence that I am doing so legally and safely. And - I'd like to have that situation achieved at the lowest possible cost for the service.

Interesting question. In theory, I THINK the answer is no, since if it is pumping fuel, then the fuel reaching it is below the vapour point, and it is adding pressure, so it shouldn't. But I think that if I had such a set-up I'd want to make damn sure the bypass line rises above the level of both pumps in the circuit.

I don't think there is ANY constitution that could be guaranteed to be proof against serious abuse of trust (I think it is fairly obvious that the current one had holes that certain people drove tanks through!), so to a degree it will come back to, members making a judgement on the quality and good faith of the Executive Committee - in particular. To slightly abuse an old saw about seeking tio unravel crimes: 'where's the money?' In this case, I'd suggest that you can replace 'money' with 'personal advantage'. What real 'personal advantage' can a Board Member gain by manipulating the operation of RAA? Perhaps someone with an obvious financial interest in some aspect of rec. aviation - say, the operation of a maintenance facility or FTF - could skew things their way, but I don't see - since the CAOs are the foundation of the applicable regs. with perhaps some tinkering around the edges left for RAA - that RAA members are ever truly likely to be chasing a Board member who has suddenly decamped to the Cayman Islands with an inexplicable fortune in hand leaving RAA coffers emptied out. I don't think there is a potential Clive Palmer-sized hole in Board appointments...

I think, Don, that you don't want to be called Shirley. Or possibly, surly. Surely...

ANY systems designer of decent experience has had tattoed on their forehead the phrase: '95% complete, only 95% to go'. This applies to the proposed constitutional changes. The proposals for change are NOT an announcement of position - they are an announcement of a decision yet to be taken. Whatever the outcome - it won't - unless there is an unimaginably vast change in membership participation - be 'democratic' in the true sense, no matter WHAT the outcome. It will simply represent the majority view of those who could be ars%d to vote. SO: assuming that 10,000 members is the correct number: if 5,001 vote for one side, THEN it is 'democratic'. If the majority vote for either side of this argument is LESS than 5,001, then what you are seeing is the the MAJORITY don't give an intercontinental supersonic fur-lined flying f$$k for democracy, or the composition of the Board. One might be forgiven for assuming that they just want to get on with flying their airplane, probably legally, and possibly, safely. So let's see what the vote brings to the table...

The decision to make audits of paperwork was - I believe - made quite some time ago. The log-books for our (L2-maintained, FTF-used) aircraft are an absolute disgrace. We took pictures of a repair job ( installing a new front leg) signed off by said L2 to RAA to discuss the faulty (and dangerous) work which had the steering push-rod rubbing on the hole in the firewall to the extent it had bent the rod-ends considerably; had it failed it could have jammed the rudder hard over. The RAA Asst. Tech Manager was appalled at the state of the log-books (from before our ownership of the aircraft); my co-owner pointed out that in fact, if produced in Court, they would have shown serious evidential deficiencies that any audit would have picked up. If the accident that totalled our aircraft had been the subject of a Court case, all hell would have broken loose. Just before people jump onto the 'intruding into our freedoms' bandwagon, they might want to consider a few points. Firstly: if you have an accident that results in a Court case ( e.g. an injured passenger claiming 3rd party damages), and there is any question as to the airworthiness of the aircraft at the time, the log-books are your only defence. Secondly, if you need to make an insurance claim and again, the condition of the aircraft is in question at all, you can BET that the Insurance company will require you to prove you have properly maintained it. Try getting QBE to shell out on nothing more than your assertion that it was all ridgy-didge. If you drive a car on the road, it requires registration and in most jurisdictions, that requires some sort of annual inspection and certification that it is, in fact, roadworthy. In several States at least, there is Police number-plate camera registration check technology - so you are being 'audited', de facto, any time you pass a suitably-equipped police vehicle. If you live in one of these States - do you protest that this is an encroachment on your rights? If you are entirely prepared to assume ALL liability for your aviating, then yes, your rights to assume that liability are being encroached upon. RAA membership - I believe - includes automatic Public Risk and third party insurance - or do I have it wrong here? If you avail yourself of that protection, then I think RAA has a duty to all of its members to ensure that the Insurance cover pool that all contribute to via their membership fees is at least guarded by ensuring that the owners of aircraft that cannot PROVE they are compliant with all applicable conditions are not taking advantage of those who scrupulously ensure their aircraft are 100% compliant. Perhaps there needs to be an 'opt-out' provision: that you don't have to pay the Insurance cover part of your membership (and you thereby do not qualify for the RAA bulk cover protection) and in exchange for that, you receive indemnity from 'paperwork' audits. I would whole-heartedly support this option for those who fly their single-seater, self-built only within the confines of their own property. Finally - and I believe this is an important point for the future of All sport aviation - consider the question of responsibility to the rest of your fellow sport/recreational aviators. We all live under a somewhat precarious regime, where the 'general public' tends to think we are all a bunch of rich cowboys and, when accidents DO happen, there tends to be a negative reaction on the lines of 'get rid of this menace from the skies'. For our 'responsible authority' to be able to show that it is doing a thoroughly professional and responsible job of maintaining 'standards', is not something which we should take lightly, lest we lose far more than we gain from the removal of a small irritation. Please: before you just go off incandescent at what your perceive to be an arbitrary action on the part of RAA: look at the big picture. I believe that I can (and I know I will) maintain my aircraft to the applicable standards, and that means complying with a lot of tedious paperwork. I will be BLOODY annoyed, if some 'free-spirited' person who considers that all of that is so much horse-manure, causes a celebrated accident that results in us all having our access to airspace, decent airfields etc. knocked over by a vengeful populace convincing their government representatives to cut us all off at the knees.

Bill - that's a 160 panel, but an LSA cockpit: master cylinder back behind the stick, LSA doors... But I need an LSA55 POH for my St1 ( also originally with a 1600 engine).. May I PM you to see it we can arrange something? - Jabiru can only supply a 120 POH, which is bugger-all use to me..

Frank, I am sure you know that you and I sing to the same song-sheet on many issues!. I happen to think that RAA has the best Board it has had - possibly ever - right at the moment, in terms of the expertise, experience,and commitment to getting the organisation to be really effective. I would really, really like to see RAA re-draw the way in which it operates so that the 'regulatory administration' function is far more effective and cost-efficient than it is, and that the 'community representation' function is strengthened considerably. I personally believe, that if RAA does NOT have strong and effective local community representation, we are likely to see further reduction of airfields as Councils get their hands on decent local airfields and sell them off - which will reduce the availability of not just convenient airfields but also the re-location of maintenance services that RAA members need, access to fuel supplies etc. It's going to be self-defeating if RAA members become 'all dressed up, with nowhere they can go'. And, I suggest, that the selection of 'local representatives' is very much an area in which the local membership SHOULD have the opportunity to vote: to select people they can all rally behind to make a strong local voice. The management of the regulatory administration side, is basically mechanistic. The regulations are imposed on us - they are not a matter for member approval. Yes, there is a role for the RAA to be representative of what its membership would LIKE to be incorporated - but in reality, when one looks at the history of say, the push for a greater MTOW, it was simply swatted down by McCormick and RAA had no further recourse to action. I'd want to see RAA continue to push for regulation change in accordance with member preferences - but to take a dispassionate view, how much cost will RAA members bear for that to happen? RAA can only do what its resources allow and given the complexity of national and international standards, there is not much room there for change. Possibly, there is room to consider a cost structure for membership that isolates the costs of regulatory compliance from the costs of 'advancement of members' interests'. The compliance with regulations issue, is not optional. Nobody can fly if they are not legally compliant for the registration of their aircraft and their PIC qualifications. To me, that is my FIRST concern, otherwise I have an aircraft (well, when I HAVE a registerable aircraft!) - because otherwise, it's a bloody lawn ornament - or more precisely, a piece of useless junk in my workshop. Honestly, there is NO degree of 'democratic participation' which would make a gnat's gonad of difference to whether my aircraft and my PIC qualification is legal: either they comply, or they don't. End of story. So - is it such a stretch, to suggest that the FIRST thing to be sorted with any change to the RAA constitution, is ensuring that a management structure that can deliver the regulatory compliance function, should be achieved? THEN, there is much scope for members to seek additions to that to support 'member interest' issues? There is no explicit - nor I would suggest, implicit - connection between the degree of 'democracy' involved in the appointment of Board members and the potential for delivery of regulatory compliance services. My position in all of this is: get the primary responsibility for RAA working first, and then seek to expand it.

Frank - I think you have too little faith in the spread of competencies and the very wide diversity of backgrounds that RAA has in its membership. I would think that, if there is no candidate with suitable skills AND the ability to demonstrate / convince the members that they at the very least understand the world of Rec Av. - nobody will vote for them. It is - seriously - a far more fraught path to expect that someone with a good general background in aviation matters can become an instant expert in sophisticated professional disciplines such as financial strategy planning, legal procedure, practice and liability mitigation, sales and marketing - to pick up on Ian Baker's list - than for a Board with a good spread of Rec. Av experience to explain and argue the intricacies relevant to the Rec Av milieu when discussing strategic plans for action in those areas. Rec. Aviation is not some rare and unique beast for which the general rules applicable to real life cease to apply. Rec. Aviation is not going to be successful in arguing that 'the vibe' is a defence against an adverse Court finding of liability, of suddenly finding itself bankrupt, or of dying a slow death because membership declines below the critical mass needed to make it viable. And - and you, of all people, appreciate this- it's no damn use having Board members who think that just shouting against CASA etc. will change the real world. RAA has to operate in the real world. I am proud to say George Markey was a mate, but even as far back as the HORSCOT enquiry, his ultra-combative approach was a negative for the advancement of the AUF. George was very possibly the irresistible force needed to bring the AUF into being - and from it, eventually, the RAA: but force of personality is NOT what RAA needs now. It is NOT, to be realistic, an over-arching CLUB of members - it is a service organisation with responsibilities for the discharge of its delegated authority. I would go so far as to say that I believe the 'CLUB' function is far, far better handled at the regional level, with the growth of many damn good regional clubs. In regard to the actual demand for 'democracy' in the management of RAA, even those most passionately espousing this cause accept that voting from the membership for the Board members rarely exceeds perhaps 10% of members? That is hardly a resounding confirmation that 'democracy' is a major concern. I contend, that that level of participation, is proof positive that what a very large majority of members want is the execution of the essential functions required to keep their aircraft and their PIC qualifications (and probably, the group insurance cover) accomplished competently, effectively and cost-efficiently. I don't mean to denigrate the strongly-held beliefs of some, that RAA should operate primarily as a community of like-minded aviators - a 'band of brothers' (forgive the sexism inherent in that, but 'a band of siblings' just hasn't caught on as a catch-phrase yet) bonded by flying. It would be interesting to find out how many RAA pilots/owners/operators are members of local flying clubs vs. the number of RAA members who vote for Board elections - I'll bet it is higher for the former category. Frank - I think it is a somewhat harsh truth, that more than 80% of RAA members simply don't care who is on the Board; what they want is their flying to be able to continue legally with minimum cost. Let's not be deluded here: CASA has already stated that it does not intrinsically support a monopoly position for any Sports aviation organisation to be the only supplier of compliance services. Given the exhibited apathy of something like 80%-plus of members to participate in the exercise of democracy, do you seriously believe that they would not defect to a competitive simple business service that provided all the essential services they require at less cost? That is not a rhetorical question; working with George Markey until a few days before his death, I modelled a system to do exactly that and I think it would have had a very decent business case, though we didn't get that far. While I have no personal interest in doing any such thing, that doesn't mean others could not also see a business possibility here. RAA actually requires quite a considerable premium simply because it is a psuedo-democratic organisation. It remains, to date, not a particularly efficient one by modern business practice standards. I'm sorry if this seems a challenging statement - but do you honestly believe it is incorrect?

I ascribe to the view of Churchill, that 'democracy is the least worst option'... and I certainly support the idea that RAA needs salaried staff to cover skills areas in the mechanistic sense of being entirely capable and efficient in the procedural aspects of conducting the overall business of the organisation according to the strategic vision and direction of the Board - that is simple business sense. In terms of the 'beauty contest' argument - well, that has certainly been proven in the past, I would be the last to argue against that!. However, I do suggest that the removal of geographical considerations for voting plus the idea that the election of at least some of the Board by members judgement of the best available candidate with specialist skills in necessary areas should at least limit /minimise the occurrence of that. The old adage of 'if you want a job done, get a busy person to do it' is very true, so I suggest that the use of electronic communication is absolutely essential to reduce unproductive time for Board members; I understand that there have been great strides in this area and hopefully the opportunity to fine-tune that will continue. it may be necessary to provide a dedicated ( or certainly, focussed) staff position to act as a Secretary to the Board to maximise its efficiency (and while the CEO is - I assume - performing that task at the moment, that may not continue to be a viable option if the rest of the management workload makes it too much of a distraction.) However - in all of this debate - in reality, which is the greater concern for the general membership: the democratic or otherwise nature of the management or the performance of the essential services that RAA must provide to meet its delegated responsibilities?

It seems to me that you are stating that RAA could only ever get mediocre people onto the Board, so why would (say) seven mediocre people be more effective than (say) five? Seems to me that you are enthusiastically arguing for a camel, when a horse would do the job better...

Good point. If we could all agree on what is a (theoretical) ideal Board make-up, it is impossible that this can be done in a seamless transition from what is now in place. There will have to be a period where the 'old' Board hands over - as it were - to the 'new' Board. That requires a bit of faith from members in the current Board members being people of honest intent to be achieved. That might be a bit of an ask - obviously some of the posters on this thread have no expectation of this - but personally I do have that expectation.

Perhaps if you removed the cans from your ears? Google CAMit Aero engines.

Please define your six required skill sets - for once, we happen to agree on a metric, but I've defined the skills, I'd like to see your ideal list.. The idea that avoiding a 'clique', seems more based on conspiracy theories than examination of necessary qualities. I guess that conspiracy theories are not wholly discountable - we currently have a democratically-elected ( with exceptions due to electoral quirks) Federal Government rent by conspiring cliques - which to me only supports the argument that election based on geography is totally inadequate to run any sort of 'business'.

PM: overlapping skills would be a bonus, not a negative. An individual might be elected to fill a specific position, but if they also bring serious expertise to the rest of Board deliberations - how could that be anything but advantageous? Here's an example: Bill Dinsmore. A qualified CPA, highly experienced in corporate finance matters. Pilot certificate #1 issued by the AUF. Ex- CFI of Southern Cross Gliding Club. When George Markey was prosecuted (unsuccessfully) for the Mangalore 'Ultrabat runaway' incident, Bill appeared as a witness for the Defence. When asked about his aviation experience, he stated: 14,736 hours and 34 minutes. IF you could get people on the Board with that sort of breadth of experience - how could it not enhance the Board's cumulative expertise?

#1 on that! But: if 'legal expertise' is ONE of the desired directorial requirements ( and I'm inclined to agree - any organisation with aeronautical operations would get the Gold Star with Elephant Stamp for being able to get, say, Spencer Ferrier aboard), then members are voting on the best candidate for that position on the Board... so six of those seven, won't get appointed. And - for my money, I'll train with a CFI of an FTF that knows how to teach me to fly properly, rather than telling me what the legal position is with precision..

Fine: don't. Don't buy a CAE 2200 either. CAMit doesn't need the aggro coming from someone who can't deduce how his aircraft's control runs operate (a basic understanding of mechanics), making accusations of faults from the installation of one of its engines by a numpty. PLEASE - buy a rotax. Then, we can all enjoy your explanation of how much better value it is.

kasper: I can't find any fault with your annoyance. BUT: it might be mightily instructive, to delve into the reasons for this situation having developed: is it 100% Darren's fault, or has the whole RAA regulatory administration mechanism been no more than treading water furiously under its weight of archaic systems for years? I spent a number of years developing a web-enabled, relational-databased business management system for a far larger than SME company ( a subsidiary recently of Worley Parsons, who are major players..) to move them from a paper-based management to a modern IT-based management milieu, and the RAA system is so far below reasonable as to be a sad joke in these times. That is not cheap, but given the way in which the former management of RAA built up a financial surplus without investing in decent systems, in my view it stands condemned for its failure to progress the organisation as its needs grew. That is no consolation to you in your current situation - but it is, I believe, symptomatic of the need for major change. Those who know the history of RAA management will recognise the charge that for too many years, it was under autocratic rule...

Having kept moderately abreast of all the recent commentary on this thread, it seem to me that the bone of contention has devolved to the number of directors to be appointed. Competing numbers of directors have been suggested, without any discussion - from either side - of actually what the RAA might NEED, to be an effective Board. There is NO 'silver bullet' here, of the number that changes any Board from being ineffective or prone to unreasonable influences, or suitable/appropriate/effective for the nature of the organisation. So - let's cut to the chase here. What skills (indicated by successful professional experience) does RAA need to have encompassed in the Board to have an effective Board, that could be reasonably be expected of any individual to bring to the Board? I'll take the first plunge into the water here, to open debate: Corporate management of at least a SME Financial strategic planning at the level of a SME; Technical understanding of the CAOs and RAA technical requirements; Flying operation for both general ops. and FTF ops; Organisation representation and development ( loosely: P.R.) Member representation. That comes to six members: as it happens, between the five and seven being hotly debated here. So: who has a different list?

kasper, CASA does (very frequently) not understand the CAO's; moreover, it frequently 'interprets' them in ways that accord with what it happens to WANT to do at the time, NOT what they actually say.. There were two people who really understood them - and one of those - George Markey - is no longer with us. The other, is Dafydd Llewellyn. Why? - because John Sharpe, when Minister for Transport, had these two spending years (unpaid, I might add, not even traveling expenses!) undertaking the re-write of a substantial part of them. CASA Legal Office has spent an inordinate amount of time resisting bringing that rewrite fully into force. To be fair, I think you need to cut Darren some slack here; he inherited a 'system' ( to give it a credibility it totally does NOT deserve) which is so archaic in operation that it is an insult. Add to that, having to 'best guess' what CASA thinks is acceptable. The relationship between CASA and RAA may be summed up as: CASA saying that 'you have the delegated responsibility - unless we disagree with your decision, in which case, our ruling applies.' Though I have never met him, my impression of Darren is that he is making his best efforts to act in the interests of members. May I humbly suggest, that rather than arcing up against him, you could use you knowledge - which is obviously very considerable - to mutually help through your situation and thus materially assist in expanding his understanding for the general benefit of members?