frank marriott

The real problem is about 1000 members who returned the same directors to the board. No change means no change - I honestly give up - we are getting what we deserve ultimately.

A lot of people, who I speak to at least, have no interest in the political style take over OUR organisation. Several asked me who they should vote for (not happy with current outcomes) and all I could honestly say was I only know the members standing for re-election (and gave MY opinion of each of them) - the rest were unknown to myself and they could form their own opinion on what was presented. This was the PLANNED outcome in the takeover as when local representatives were involved they already had a personal opinion of the candidate. The outcome was predicted and there is only ONE way to correct the catastrophe, but I don’t see enough enthusiasm, at this stage, to correct it. To be honest my enthusiasm to get involved again has been killed so apart from voting (& the occasional comment) I have given up and just fly myself & try to forget about the issues I see as critical.

Well 1954 are. I guess the inclusion of the word “interested” explains a lot. The proposal to appoint non-members as directors and give them equal voting power is a signal of the value of members opinions. I certainly hope people take the time to read the proposed changes and make an informed decision on their views.

I hope all who voted for (& gave their proxies) to M&M to allow the take over of RAA from a member organisation are happy with the direction they have taken it. I have serious concerns for the future of RAA but I continue to see some still happy in their “private place” as unbelievable as it may be. Two options : Sit back and watch (will be too late soon) OR Take back control (although I don’t see much action happening in that area)

You should have added “as amended without consolation for a private agenda”

OK, I’ll pose a couple of serious matters you may wish to comment on, or not depending on your view of where RAA should be heading: 1. The decision to release private information to AVDATA without consent and the reason for doing so. 2. The submitting of the Tech Manual to CASA without approval of the then board, later authorised by the defacto board of 3. Certainly matters of credibility discussed amongst member I speak to.

Sounds like some are pushing for another class of CHTR, no need it already exists just too expensive for a lot of people. CPL, IFR (presume multi engine for NGT and IFR) all good to armchair experts BUT it already exists with the added cost of the extra conditions. One can accept it as a cheaper alternative in some cases or just reject it. Legislating it into the non viable area is the same as banning it. There are already “some” commercial ops doing paid medical/rescue services. Angle Flight has been an additional service for certain conditions, as I understand it organised private flights with fuel refunded, but naturally can be legislated out of existence.

Consideration should be given to process and when actions are taken BEFORE board approval then the individuals responsible should be held to account - a prime example is the Tech Manual which was being strongly debated about its present form when it was submitted to CASA for approval. BAD management and the only way they got away with it was the bastardised constitution where half the board was effectively sacked. Not interested in standing again with this type of behaviour but you can rest assured the individuals will never be forgotten.

The subjects of PVT, CHTR & medicals will be rehashed and debated again as usual. The real issue from my observations is compliance with VMC, IMC & night limitations. NVFR in other than ideal conditions is always a serious issue. Lengthy flights at night without a CIR requires more in-depth planning & considerations and the current available electronic devices (although helpful) do not substitute for training and currency.

PLUS have stated it is “their” position. Remember the ridiculous printed statement from Linke that they will contribute to the work for LAMES. No self interest from Banfield of course.

Bruce, I don’t think anyone should go there. What individuals stand for and thereby the direction RAA will go is really up to the individual member to decide for themselves. Comments about individual office bearers (myself included) are personal views/observations which may have some influence on opinions (and maybe not) but ultimately it is up to each member to decide who they consider the best individual to represent their view of where the organisation should head. I just hope members consider seriously what they want, contact current and prospective board members directly if in doubt, and then make an informed decision based on THEIR belief of the correct direction they would like to see RAA proceed. Everyone will not be in complete agreement no matter who is ultimately elected.

Barry is 100% with Monk & Linke - if that is your desire.

Conspiracy theories abound about the death of JFK. The best evidence based analysis, with the now released Warren Commission papers, as detailed in the book The Smoking Gun by Colin McLarin, details the most likely set of events IMO. This details the fatal shot coming from Hickey and suggests a reason why so many different conspiracy theories were not discredited immediately as they served a purpose and to why there was a lack of a expert criminal investigation as the facts were already known but not desirable to be released. This book details at least a believable set of circumstances as opposed to some of the fanciful theories. But many theories still abound.

Clear statement of intent. I didn’t know RAA had any function in ensuring work for LAMEs. Questionable priorities!

..