01rmb

From the facebook site =AZW33TkkZX9jgS7jWcyThYD-H_DKvlaZE8Yn2F3rjvlHYNI-qArK-XmbycaBhd59scMzS2gRBAHIOtjS8C5BloxiDxg0HEPF75VTUKlER4EuJ4MiCLeHj2e4TGvPq9cs3qNTs5DRvUGLwu7R_mbv4iSHy8O89dNAbOMj-7wTpnYW0Q&__tn__=-UC%2CP-R']Australian International Airshow AVALON 2021 DEFERRED TO NOVEMBER 2021 Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve been monitoring the evolving situation and its potential effects on the Australian International Airshow (AVALON 2021), whose centrepiece will be the once in a lifetime celebration of the Centenary of the Royal Australian Air Force. After extensive consultation and review, it has become clear that if we continued with the original February dates, the impacts of COVID-19, including uncertainty about availability of international travel, would pose unacceptable risks to our patrons and impact our event and the RAAF birthday celebrations. As we’ve all found while isolating in our own homes – it’s not much of a party when your friends can’t come! As a result, AVALON 2021, originally scheduled for 23-28 February, will be deferred to later in 2021, with timings in November being considered. Once dates are locked in we will let you know so you can save the date! =AZW33TkkZX9jgS7jWcyThYD-H_DKvlaZE8Yn2F3rjvlHYNI-qArK-XmbycaBhd59scMzS2gRBAHIOtjS8C5BloxiDxg0HEPF75VTUKlER4EuJ4MiCLeHj2e4TGvPq9cs3qNTs5DRvUGLwu7R_mbv4iSHy8O89dNAbOMj-7wTpnYW0Q&__tn__=EH-R']width=408px" alt="Image may contain: texthttps://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/97434382_2768795769915407_1463629802555572224_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=0W5Y1lts7B4AX9aK1zM&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=5943e73b57cb88fe1686242eaaee423c&oe=5EE2D315[/img]

From what I understand - this does not mean that something like the Jabiru J230 bought from the factory under the LSA category will be granted a higher weight limit. The LSA category would need to be changed to allow that to happen and as it is aligned to an international standard, it won't happen (for any foreseeable future). If you were to build your own aircraft under a owner builder experimental category then whatever manufacturer weight restrictions apply and then if (when) RAAus is able to manage higher weight categories RAAus would allow registration under the higher weight limit. So unfortunately, even though the aircraft can handle a higher weight limit they will still not be able to take advantage of it if the aircraft was built under the LSA standard legislation.

A missed opportunity to have made a real difference as it still is more complicated than necessary. Although an improvement of the current system, if they had simply copied and pasted the UK medical requirements they could have done away with a huge amount of bureaucracy and need for CASA staff to run a system that has evidence to show no real safety benefit. The last revamp of the CASA medical questionnaire was a joke. If you are safe enough to be on the road then there would be no more danger to yourself or the public in the air.

To complete the CASA medical CASA requires a full history to the month including a broken leg, any pain relief, over the counter medication or herbal medicines taken over the last 4 years, any visits to a chiropractor and anything else that may have ever happened in your or your families life! At what point does this history of temporary events become irrelevant to what is going to happen in the next 1-4 years and which would if not disclosed lead to an increase the risk to the general population? By all means check normal function and history to ensure safe operation an aircraft such as vision, diabetes, seizures, psychiatric conditions and heart disease but to have to declare a Codral taken 4 years ago for a cold? The whole CASA medical process seems to take a reasonable medical assessment of fitness to fly to a whole level of extreme paranoia. The medical if needed to investigate any issue should be able to be conducted by any doctor and be limited to any long-term or permanent injury or illness that may affect their ability to fly safely.

Don - If you really wanted to know what people thought, go back to the other threads about the problems with the constitution. Given all the feedback provided before the constitution was put to the vote and the vitriol from some it is no wonder people have given up. Why bother when all the feedback gets ignored. We just have to live with the discontent and consequences.

I still defend a member's right to raise a resolution and for the constitution to be followed by all. At best the constitution is poorly worded around the timing for a member's resolution. No conspiracy - just a case of not wishing to see member's rights diminished.

I would contend they have breached member's rights by limiting resolutions to the 23rd September since I still believe the time for a member to propose a resolution is 7 days according to 27.3. Clause 21 is totally for the board to call a general meeting. If the board provides notice of a general meeting at 21 days notice - how could a member provide a member's resolution within the same time frame? That is why there has to be a period of time after the notice of a meeting and the close off time to receive a member's resolution. If ASIC really had any teeth they would surely bite at the board blocking a member's ability to raise a resolution in accordance with the constitution. I would love to see the legal advice that says that is okay!

In my years of consulting I have been amazed by how many dumb decisions are made by people, including many senior execs and board members. The lesson I learnt is never to under estimate the fact that people can be 'just plain dumb'! I believe this to be a case of reading the message they want into the document not reading what it actually says.

Still think you should be worried because if you do take the loss of $227k and add on the trade payables of $232k of which $225k is for the new software, the loss is really $459k. This would drop the cash to $688k.

Sorry - I may have misled you The cash in the bank is now $920k, building $829k and other other misc assets incl plant, receivables and the new software $448k. The $377k cash down was the amount of cash that is no longer in the bank this year from the $1296k we had last year. Not a good situation with the Current Assets worse off by $319k whilst Current Liabilities are worse off by $102k. With the Current Ratio dropping from 3.63 to 2.18 we are going backwards fast. There is also a little matter of trade payables, accrued and other expenses that is $283k so if taken out of cash will be a big drop in cash reserves. This is $150k more than last year. Sneaky if done deliberately to hold up the cash number...

See members section https://members.raa.asn.au/storage/1-20160929-signed-financial-statements-2016-final.pdf Cash down $376,856 Overall Equity down $227,535 Better than 2015 which was down $268,781 from previous year Travel up $58,467 Member fees down $41,452 Nothing spent on airshow and courses Increase of stock with $22,923 of merchandise Intangibles up due to new software system $205,760 Losses due to magazine hidden somewhere in there

Remember the rules in the constitution were set up by the board and voted on by the members. The problems and contradictions were identified by a number of people especially Kasper who said fix the problems before making them legally binding and now we are faced with the problems of not getting them right in the first place. You can't just pick and choose which rules we should follow - That is where we will really end up in trouble.

Don - you have cross referenced the notification time of 21 days which is the minimum time the board must advise members of an AGM to occur (Constitution Section 21 Notice of general meetings) with the time allowed for members to propose a resolution (Constitution Section 27 Members’ resolutions and statements) which is a minimum of 7 days. IT IS NOT THE SAME. The relevant section for members to request a resolution/statement is Constitution Section 27.3 A request to distribute a Members’ statement must be given to the Company at least seven (7) days prior to a general meeting and set out the statement to be distributed and be signed by the Members making the request. In the notification of the AGM, it states "Any member intending to submit a resolution must do so in writing prior to 23 September 2016." Why this is a contradiction of the 7 day notice from the constitution I don't know other than possibly to allow time to forward such resolutions to the members. BUT then the constitution should have allowed more time than the minimum of 7 days. If the time to provide notice of a proposed member's resolution to members is sufficient then it must be done at RAAus cost as per Constitution Section 28. Or if not enough time then at the cost of the member proposing the resolution (but a resolution may be passed to reimburse those costs). But what is the cost for sending out an email to all members since that is how I was advised of the AGM in the first place and received an update from the CEO only yesterday? Certainly NOT the $10,000 you speak of. It is important that the rules detailed in the constitution be followed by everyone - especially the board and CEO charged with carrying them out. Hopefully the board has received better advice than what you are providing here.

Why categorise one person to be an "expert" and another an "armchair critic" simply because they are not the CEO or a board member? Just because somebody is not on the board does not make them less capable or able to contribute in a positive way. There are lawyers, engineers, accountants, business leaders including any number of very experienced pilots and aircraft builders/maintainers with a wide range of qualifications and experience - why not make use of them rather than disparage them as armchair critics? Changes to the constitution and supporting documents, operations manual and technical manual were sent out accepting there were flaws that needed to be corrected. Why not send it out for comment and then actually listen to what comes back so it can be better first time? The board, CEO and the technical manager are not the only people who can provide the answers. Plan the consultation period and you will not be caught out with no time to engage with the people that will be affected by the changes. Change 101! The problem comes when people in board, CEO and other leadership roles believe they are above the people they are meant to be serving. They do not have all of the answers so why not consult with the members on significant changes?

You can't have the case of 'we set the rules and you must follow them and you will face consequences if you don't' but we can do as we please even to the point of breaking legal constitutional rules on the basis of it does not matter! If the board and CEO are not following the rules then why should they expect different from the members? If someone says "Trust us" then they need to demonstrate they deserve and continue to earn that trust. The board and CEO, above all else, need to be be doing and be seen to be doing the right thing and held to account if they don't.