Powerin
-
Posts
840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by Powerin
-
A very wise and insightful comment Jack
-
Exactly! Again, for other Board members to use a derogatory term such as "fishing" for a board member doing due diligence and fulfilling his responsibilities says a lot about the level of professionalism and integrity present in some of our elected representatives.
-
Transparency is a double edged sword. On the one hand I applaud Jim in revealing what he has. We members needed to know what we are dealing with. On the other hand, to be effective and allow for free and open discussion without fear of repercussions, board members of any organisation need assurance that the things they say in a board room will go no further (or even a board email list). Important things will go unsaid in meetings if board members think it may be repeated in public. I don't know what the answer is. Jim has revealed important information that needed airing, but at the same time has become untrustworthy in the eyes of some and therefore excluded from some discussions. As much as I hate to say it, and as much as they deserve being exposed, I can't say I blame them. I would be the same. This is not attacking Jim in any way. As a member I am glad that he has said what needed to be said. But as a non-profit board member I can see the need for some confidentiality if a board is to work effectively.
-
I'm not quite sure which post this was in reply to, and I'm sure you know this, but for general information - Incorporated Associations must include certain standard model rules in their constitutions. If they are not included, and a dispute arises, a court will rule as if the rules were there anyway (in NSW anyway...and the ACT act looks similar) Sorry Jim, for the off topic post.
-
I continue to be surprised. Board members being withheld information? *Sigh* As said above...all board members should be provided with all documentation, regardless of cost. And the bigger the document, the more important it is for Board members have it in a reasonable timeframe to be able to digest it all. If, for some strange reason, you actually needed to send paper documents let's look at the costs to send 200 pages of documents to Jim: I assume RAAus has a photocopier and if it's under a full service contract it will cost about 2 cents per B&W page. So Printing costs= $4.00 100 A4 sheets of paper at most = $1 100 A4 sheets of paper weigh about 500 grams (I weighed them). 500 gram 3-5 day parcel post from most places to Geelong = $6.60 Is under $12 dollars too much to pay for a $multi-million organisation to keep a Board member fully informed?
-
Well, up until I read that (thanks Jim), I was (still) willing to give the Board the benefit of the doubt. I really thought we would be better off sticking with them and working through the problems. No more. Again we see this mentality of raising the drawbridge and keeping the peasants out. Rule with an iron fist. Dig in and use every method possible to hold on to power. It says so much that they are willing to use technicalities in the attempt. I believe, as David says above, that the purposes of the meeting were clearly stated and that motions can be taken from the floor. Do they really think a team of lawyers might save them from the wishes of members (whatever they may be)? If they succeed I can guarantee my signature will be the first on the piece of paper calling for another General Meeting with a single very specific purpose..... EDIT: sorry...I didn't mean to tar all Board members with the same brush...you know who you are
-
I understand the sentiment behind this, but a general exemption for something as important as a prop is not something I would like to see, especially when it comes to re-selling an aircraft. If an aircraft is experimental with 19 on the side anything goes and it's the buyer beware. But if I'm buying a factory built aircraft, new or second-hand, I believe I should be able to expect that the parts used in construction and maintenance are a tested and approved. I even don't mind if an owner takes the risk and modifies a plane for there own use....as long as it is returned to an approved condition when it comes to selling or transferring ownership. How does it work in the GA world? There are plenty of old types flying where the company doesn't exist any more. Do ALL the parts used on these always need STCs?
-
Sue...verily thy name is Shirley (phew) I am happy to help.
-
Fair enough...but I'm just a knock-about farmer that hasn't even got his cert yet (sigh). Surely there's someone more qualified to save RAAus? C'mon Shirley...I'm looking at you....
-
Oh no...what have I got myself into... It's NY Eve and think I included a disclaimer about being intoxicated in a previous post:celebrate:
-
True Turbo. It's all relative. I walk into our local stock and station outlet and spend $10K on crop chemicals without even blinking. But we all have priorities in life, and spending $150 on something I hate doing with a small chance of reward is hard to justify. I admire the fact that you have.
-
Sorry...that's the killer. Donations are welcome.
-
OK Turbo....sigh. I was hoping someone with more financial sense might take up the mantle. I put poring over 5 years of financials right up there with crutching flyblown sheep. But let's say, for the sake of argument, in a moment of extreme intoxication, I might want to actually look at 5 years of RAAus financials. How would I go about it? I'd be happy if a passing turbo driven aircraft accidentally dropped a brown paper package in my back paddock As a member, I should be able to request the financials, but I have to go to Canberra to see them, and to be honest the abbreviated documents they give us don't say much in the way of detailed expenditure items anyway. Sure, I guess I could go down the FOI route, but I gather that costs money and I'm sorry, I'm not going to pay a cent to crutch someone else's sheep!
-
Having again perused the financials today, I was again a little annoyed by the quality....such that it was difficult to read some figures. I know I'm probably being unfair...but I'm trying to think of the chain of events which would lead members being presented with a copy of the financials, three months after they were dated, that appear to be a scanned copy of a FAX.... At very least it looks unprofessional....but if one were being uncharitable, one could say it looks like a rushed job
-
That would be my understanding Col.
-
True. However, RAAus being the legal entity, wouldn't this be a potential drain on member's funds? Can you bring action against individuals carrying out there duties as a committee on behalf of RAAus?
-
And I consider that right there to be the worst part of this sorry saga.....leaving members like Ozzie in limbo with no word whatsoever is unconscionable. I don't care what it takes...hire someone for a week to get on the phone and tell affected members "sorry your rego has been delayed" or whatever. Do something.
-
No need for a class action. The constitution allows members to remove any member(s) of the Board at a General Meeting (subject to the laws of natural justice). I don't think it would be wise to sack the lot and leave us with a rudderless ship though (although some would argue that that's what we have already ). Only items of business that are noted in the call for a General Meeting can be dealt with, but I believe one of the items of business listed is motions from the floor be taken, considered and voted on. If you think this action is called for it would be allowable, and your right, to move a motion of no confidence (or dismissal?) in any or all members of the Board from the floor of the upcoming General Meeting. If it was supported by the majority of members they would be gone. I would urge everyone to consider the ramifications of such a move, and where the RAAus would go from there.
-
These are some of the least glamorous things and hardest work that a Committee has to do (at least I find it hard). But it is also some of the most important work, and if you believe in the organisation you volunteered to serve it's something you just have to do. I suspect it would take more than two meetings a year to complete in a reasonable time frame. Budgeting for some extra meetings and workshops which include a facilitator and some of the general membership would be money well spent if Board members could afford the time.
-
I thought "eating humble pie and ask" might be a good start. It's hard to propose solutions when we aren't told what the problems are, or their extent. Sometimes in life we all need to eat some humble pie, even if we are right and without fault, just to calm the waters and advance the situation.
-
Gavin, Really, all we want from our RAAus representatives is honesty and integrity. Yes, you are volunteers, but, as has been pointed out, legally the buck stops with you. You make mistakes, so be it, acknowledge them, correct them and get on with the job. Unfortunately, your posts here have so far followed the prime directives of the Politician's Book of Spin 101. Blame the previous incumbents. Attack is the best form of defence. I didn't know you were a freemason. I don't really care. Please credit your members with more intelligence than to be influenced by unsubstantiated rumours. Just tell it like it is. A cursory glance through these many threads on the subject shows the amazing breadth of intelligence and experience that RAAus members have in areas such as aviation (both civil and military), law, accountancy, IT and vast experience on Boards both for-profit and not-for-profit. I bet most of this experience is yours for the asking. Eat some humble pie and ask. I, for one, would admire you and the other Board members for it.
- 77 replies
-
- 12
-
-
I know you are talking about cockpit noise, but where I live prop aircraft fly over at several thousand feet. From the ground Jabs are an order of magnitude quieter than your run of the mill Cessnas/Pipers etc. Rotaxes are so quiet you can barely hear them, just a gentle noise from the prop and a bit of a whir from the engine.
-
I agree it's a whitewash. However when making accusations such as these it's important to read ALL that is written and not select the bits that appear to make your case. It was said that the insurance lapsed ONLY if the company did not renew the policy. I assume the policy was renewed. Therefore, whitewash or not, with the benefit of hindsight, the president did not lie. I would think in reality, as DBI alludes to in his question, if a big claim was made in those days of limbo the insurance company would have run a mile. But once the new policy came into force it would be on paper in black and white that RAAus was indeed covered for the period in question.
-
Exactly Dazza, it's all in the RAAus Technical Manual...except for the mysterious MOTOW (or even MTOW). Photos (and weights etc) are only required for first time registrations though. Only the hours and landings and a statement of any changes to the aircraft are required for renewal (according to the manual). Obviously the photos are one of the vital pieces of data needed for registration that they have been missing in some cases. No wonder they've grounded everyone....missing photos are such an incredible risk to aviation safety it's a wonder we are still all alive!
-
It begs the question...if they have registered exactly zero aircraft in this time, what are they so busy at? I find this strange as the requirements for registration of these aircraft types are shown in the Technical Manual! Or is this the root cause of all the problems? The Technical Manual, the document that controls all RAAus registrations, is wrong and incorrectly interprets the law??
