winsor68 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I thought in essence the whole basis of this new "certification" besides the factory paper work and design work which is as you say left up to their integrity...is about hours flown... if your aircraft is one of 120 in use around the world you hope the first factory example has more hours than your own... in this way we can have some comfort in the fact that the airframe is not likely to fail due to age related stress if used in accordance with the operators hand book... Perhaps if it isn't it should be... nice and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Winsor , when you elect to fly a new type you are part of a testing process whether you like it or not. The Mirage flew here in australia for years before a full structural fatigue test was done down here in melbourne, and that was a full front line fighter in active service. ( lots of resources. You could also be flying a perfectly good design aeroplane that some fool has just been trying a few aero's out to self teach himself and scared shot out of himself and overstressed the airframe. Of course he doesn't put it in the book, does he? You take your wife up for a fly and the wings clap hands above you Not your fault or the aircrafts. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman1238 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I notice that the president has appologised on behalf of RAAUS for the delays in registrations. Why not appologise on behalf of himself and the CEO for the mess. I dont like to think I'm partly responsible for the delays as a RAAUS member. The funny thing is the President has known all along the issues with the RA-Aus Technical Department since doing the to the old Tech manager what he did to Adam Finn. Make the exec open all the flood gates on all the current legal actions and ones that are coming so the members know what is really going on in their Organisation then see how long they last, I think we have more storms brewing and nasty ones at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 There are restrictions on what comment can be allowed while court processes are in train. There is loss of life involved so this may be the case here. Nonetheless. Indemnifying the RAAus is NOT too much to ask as we were acting on behalf of CASA. If we carry the weight and don't fund the thing well it could compromise the outcome against us. As CASA are co_joined you would think there would be some co-operation on this matter. I have not heard of any. So at risk of repeating myself again I am highlightiing this fact. Don Ramsey would not have had to resign in different circumstances. We would be in a better position Re insurance also. For ages now I have been mentioning the need to clarify our relations with CASA. Our board cannot serve two masters. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 FH, regarding the current case RAA and CASA are two of the defendants in the case. You talk about co_joined but each defendant is responsible for defending himself. Since this centres around who did what which is central to the case it would be sub judice to discuss it, but taking a hypothetical case in which RAA and CASA were defendants, CASA might be out of the court on the first morning after explaining they were not involved in what happened. So the finding line you are arguing is a bit thin. What is stunning is that there should be any mention about running out of insurance money - that doesn't involve CASA. I'd hope readers don't insure their houses for 50 bucks, so the solution to that one is astute management of insurance coverage, particularly Public Liability where the coverage needs to be in tens of millions for an RAA size operation. Don Ramsay argued that he resigned because the Association's insurance coverage had run out, and I would agree with that decision because of the personal liability, however that has been denied by the President, and the broker took the unusual step of confirming that at no time was RAA without insurance coverage, and explained the sequence which caused the anxiety. Their explanations have not since been challenged, so you are worrying needlessly about that one. As for our board serving two masters, the recent action by CASA has not been conveyed to the members, apparently with the exception of one or two on another site, and that makes it very difficult to assess just how big the CASA issue is, and whether it is all a screw up by RAA, or whether CASA may have caused some of it (which I doubt). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 If we are doing some job on behalf of CASA and the process we are following has been in practice for some time and CASA has not required a change, could you consider they have failed their duty to ensure the processes are adequate. They can't abbrogate their duty of care , as you have pointed out many times. They either do it all themselves or monitor the process they have allowed to be in place and ensure it's adequacy. That is my point. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 If we are doing some job on behalf of CASA and the process we are following has been in practice for some time and CASA has not required a change, could you consider they have failed their duty to ensure the processes are adequate. They can't abbrogate their duty of care , as you have pointed out many times. They either do it all themselves or monitor the process they have allowed to be in place and ensure it's adequacy. That is my point. Nev I can't argue this one one way or the other without getting dragged in by a judge for contempt of court. I know some of the facts, so maybe just leave it for now until the case is over, that in itself may explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Joke/new rumour about blanket groundings removed before it gets out of hand . Play nice please. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilby54 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Sorry all I am a bit forum illiterate, I meant to reply to John and say the Tech manager was sacked with no reason and did not resign. Can you provide any proof of this? I have written to the RAAus on several occaisions and may as well send them to the north pole - at least I have some hope of getting something back from santa and his elves:) This lot just ignore anyone they don't want to deal with How do you get info from these people. If what you are saying is correct then it was the absolute height of stupidity to sack Adam as his qualification, experience and dedication was exactly what was required to get this mess sorted. The sooner the Ibis action reaches the courts, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Bilby I spoke directly with Adam and he was very clear he was terminated with no reason provided. Someone suggested he was probationary but as I recall he's been in the role since April. Perhaps RAA probation finishes when you do..... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilby54 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Thanks Andy Perhaps the incompetent in power disposing of those who show them up?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballpoint 246niner Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 BilbyI spoke directly with Adam and he was very clear he was terminated with no reason provided. Someone suggested he was probationary but as I recall he's been in the role since April. Perhaps RAA probation finishes when you do..... Andy A very decent guy who was dropped in a s%$#t sandwich to fix the incompetance of others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 ER told a group of us today that audited treasurers report is in the december mag.. .... the printing of which has been delayed, according to the RAA website. You would think that this announcement on the RAA website would have given some indication of when it is expected to be sent, or am I being unreasonable? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballpoint 246niner Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I understand that whilst the embargo on rego renewals has been lifted, the re reg process is in such a state of backlog and depth of new procedures that many are not having their renewals processed, thereby effectively grounding them! Is this information supported by other members in their attempts to renew existing due registrations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 rego renewal embagolifted with the presence of CASA approved, $75/hr consultant.. If the rego system we have here followed the simplicity of other countries then we would not require a consultant to over see the renewal. I guess there will be an increase in the annual rego fee announced very shortly along with fee increases to initial registration! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 So what I would like to know is what happens now when the renewel of registrations are held up because of this back log, after all our new consultant is only 1 man, what happens to the members that derive an income from their aircraft and find themselves effectively grounded when the rego runs out, does this open the door for legal action against RA-Aus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAJabiruflyer Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ring your Board Member and ask. Asking such questions on a Forum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Our registration is still outstanding (now well overdue). The office took all our details including payment, checked they had the correct email address, but nothing since, so assume it is still outstanding. Will post something when it does finally come through. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 While the present situation is frustrating for owners in the extreme, just a reminder not to succumb to flying the aircraft anyway because it is someone else's fault. If you were to have an accident, the status of the aircraft on the day is what counts, same as car registration. So it could get a lot more painful than sitting on the ground. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Echoing Turbo's advice. Frustration you may have and legitimate grievance too, but don't give the powers any more excuse to disenfranchise you. You will be in serous breach of the LAW. This whole thing is like something out of a Charles Dickens novel. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damkia Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 .... the printing of which has been delayed, according to the RAA website.You would think that this announcement on the RAA website would have given some indication of when it is expected to be sent, or am I being unreasonable? ....and their reason for not making it availabe electronically on their official website is????? This could be done now - TODAY... The rat is decomposing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 ... Because hiding behind the magazine delays the rank and file from finding out the bad news. Uncle Eugene's analysis should be top notch and a ripping yarn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Runciman particularly didn't want financial/Association information going to non members. It probably isn't realised that this information is not private, its public record through the ACT Department of Justice and readily available to members, non members, CASA, Aircraft manufacturers here and overseas, FAA, EAA etc...............and it doesn't tell a very good story, in fact by lumping so-called office expenses/salaries etc together in one big lump it could be argued that it is misleading and possibly illegal, particularly when details become known, so trying to keep the information from non members is only going to exacerbate the situation by causing forensic examination when the data his DoJ. Not a smart thing to do when you're in charge of public monies. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Uncle Steve's military training kicking in. mark everything Top Secret in case you make a mistake, makes it harder to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Greed Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 When due process is not followed, for whatever reason, someone still needs to take responsibility. It would appear that a mixture of ignorance of certain legal responsibilities under the "Incorporations Act", and the interpretation of what constitutes a 'Committee of Management" has combined, and contributed, to a less than professional approach to both governance and management. We should however be careful in our condemnation of board members, who in good faith, put themselves forward only to find they were operating in a broken system that was dominated by apparently assumed "executive" powers that stifled good governance and managements practice - an organisational culture that can be well meaning and well intentioned, but a disaster when required to operate at a level, that will not only satisfy the laws of the land and formal contracts with government, but more importantly its responsibility to fee paying members who should, via their elected representatives, be able to have some say in the shape the organisation that represents them. The coming months will be subject to some difficult processes as the board, by necessity, reclaims its position of leadership and governance and management is given clear directions as to its role in the now diverse operations of RAAus. What ever legal structure we operate under, the above, applies to all. It does however offer the exciting opportunity to reshape the organisation to better serve all stakeholders. Its now up to the members, nobody else! Pete 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now