turboplanner Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 In looking at the official notification of the General meeting, several issues concern me: 1. The Members decided the Meeting was so urgent, it should be held on December 19. The Executive, not the board members decided this should be delayed nearly two months, with the last report indicating 1,000 aircraft grounded. Neither the executive nor the board has the power to carry out a delaying tactic like this. 2. While the cost of the meeting, if it did reach $17,000.00 is high, this was brought on by a group of people over the years whose actions need to be brought to a stop. For example, in relation to the massive cost blowouts a couple of years ago, I've found two unspecified items of around $200,000.00, neither necessary and neither which in my opinion would have been approved by the members. On one of them, I only need a little more information and I'll be able to had a brief to the ACT Police Fraud Sqad. 3. Members should be on red alert that conveniently the General Meeting has been adjusted to be held at the same time as a board meeting. Members will recall at the AGM that for whatever reason, the urgent business was delayed for hours and that potential voters were walking out of the room about 1:30 pm in increasingly bigger groups until the urgent business was finally dealt with after 4:30 pm. I'm not suggesting deliberate tactics here, but members should ensure that nothing gets in the way of a timely conduct of a separate General Meeting unfetterd by the distractions of people needing to catch aircraft etc. or vacate the room. 4. The answers to questions 1 and 2 by Paul Middleton are interesting in that they don't appear to be answers, crucial answers, voted on by the board. The Notice on the RAA site of a Christmas closure from December 24 to January 2, with 1000 aircraft grounded, Flying Schools about to handle financial dynamite, and importers the same, really is amazing. I can just imagine in General Motors, faced by the same emergency, someone suggesting closing down for Christmas. They'd go close to being fired, and in fact leave would be cancelled from other divisions and people shipped in with the aim of getting the backlog cleared, executives would have their sleeves rolled up, and even Directors would be there helping. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 Look on the bright side Tubb ( a sick joke, sorry). At least the notice acknowledges that they do have a fiduciary obligation to the Association. But as per your item #1, I would have throught that the timing of a requisitioned GM was a Board decision, not just a decision of the Executive, so is that just another example of how critical decisions are taken by Steve, Paul and Eugene? And also as per your #1, the Exec then surely do not have the right to ignore the clearly stated urgency of the requisitioned meeting and delay it for 2 months ............ when they are surely hoping for brighter sunny skies and more aircraft back flying in them, so a defused situation? Did the requisition ask for a 9.30 am Saturday start for that meeting, which, while I'm Ok to get there by that time, will mean that some members may need to take Friday off work to get there in time? For Paul to also suggest that the requisitioned meeting might best also be delayed further until Natfly is a stunning lack of appreciation of the sentiment behind the requested meeting. Although he can rest assured that he will be able to attend a further discussion on all issues at Natfly as well (if there are still aircraft flying and manufacturers/importers prepared to still support that RAA event).. I further note that P2 states that the association has been run to the best of the Exec's ability. Is that an admission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I DON'T ACCEPT THE SECRETARIES RESPONSE AS ADEQUATE... HE HAS IGNORED THE REQUEST UNLESS IT IS ON THEIR TERMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I further note that P2 states that the association has been run to the best of the Exec's ability. Is that an admission? Maybe. And so is this: This situation was brought about by mistakes being made, over a very longer period of time... Ignoring the fact that Middo didn't give this enough thought to proof read it properly the interesting bit is that they admit to having problems for a very long time. So what did they do to find/fix them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 And so is this:"This situation was brought about by mistakes being made, over a very longer period of time..." Ignoring the fact that Middo didn't give this enough thought to proof read it properly the interesting bit is that they admit to having problems for a very long time. So what did they do to find/fix them? And the world-beating CEO (so called), who has had direct management responsibility for this for about 2 years, has been permitted to stay on until 2013. What a joke. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 They want to go on holidays while people are going broke? What an insult. Add my little Lazair to the now grounded list. NOT HAPPY MIDDO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 So what are you going to do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimG Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Just a thought, When the amendment was passed at the last AGM to change the minimum requirement for members to request a non-scheduled General Meeting. Was there set out a maximum amount of time between receiving the request and having the meeting. I don't remember, but did it have a clause reading something like ' within X days of receiving the members notice the executive must run the meeting' ...? If there is no time limit set out then surely they would delay it as much as required to have a tactical advantage. JimG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernieh Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 In view of the current debacle that is RAA , it seems to me to be an inordanitely long period of time to wait for the scheduled EGM.....The Titanic is already amongst the icebergs..... I can not attend but will be giving my proxy ......B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 They want to go on holidays while people are going broke? What an insult. Add my little Lazair to the now grounded list.NOT HAPPY MIDDO. Perhaps that dysfunctional portion of the Board should go on a loooooong, loooooong holiday (at least long enough to facilitate others to repair the damage that accumulated during their tenureship)! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 So what are you going to do about it? I paid my $180 bucks for 12 months of someone else doing it. And even then I (as Ozzie I am sure) tried unsuccessfully to make contact with my member the best way I knew how only to be stonewalled. Not helpful at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 You paid your $187.00 to cover staff and admin costs, but the board members only represent what you want, or should. Ozzie has been crapping on about some number, or A Model Fords or something in four word sentences for years, but they ain't gunna bring back Prohibition, and he needs to spell out what today's RAA should be doing about hair dryer powered aircraft, or it'll get lost in a big LSA Tsunami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Crikey TP... You got the craps or what? You know it was Ozzie's voice that first alerted me to the depth of the problem at Ra-Aus when he hit the stonewall when trying to re-rego his Lazair with its original numbers. That was what set me to sniffing about and when I realized that there may be some fishy business going on at Fyswick... Just because someone doesn't run for the board or take on more responsibility is not a reason to attack their right as a $180 something dollars right to have a say and question... I know myself personally would be happy to run as a Board Rep... BUT... I do not believe that I would offer value as a Rep so I won't put my hand up... This is not about individuals it is about our organization and every member being supported to have their say.. a LOT of what Ozzie says is spot on... of course it would be considering he has been flying Ultralights pretty much since they were invented. Seriously TP... as a mate... and we have met... take a few breaths... I have noticed a few critical posts over the last few days... We need your level headed brain not your grumpy grandpa one... lol 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 You paid your $187.00 to cover staff and admin costs, but the board members only represent what you want, or should.Ozzie has been crapping on about some number, or A Model Fords or something in four word sentences for years, but they ain't gunna bring back Prohibition, and he needs to spell out what today's RAA should be doing about hair dryer powered aircraft, or it'll get lost in a big LSA Tsunami. I got moderated for less than that. What is wrong with Ozzie's plane? I would like to see more of those and the LSA's thrown out the window after all which of these brought on all the groundings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I got moderated for less than that. It's a funny thing about old age...it tends to soften you up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 There is often a sentiment that life would be simpler ( at least for these folks) if they just went their way and let the complicated ones suffer their fate. The AUF did morph into the RAAus and "today Fyshwick, tomorrow the world" sort of expansion started. I personally believe we should stick together and probably more so. You could have a "Primitive planes" chapter or what ever if that was thought necessary with assurences of continuity being written in. This would be better than going it alone and being vulnerable to (as a result of a prang and newspaper feeding frenzy,") the whole caboodle gets wiped out. There is never going to be a mass movement back to these planes. The best thing is to have them scattered out there for anyone who finds them interesting and a challenge to buy build or fly someone elses. People won't often fly them across the continent like some did years ago. ( A few might, but there are other ways now). For our level of involvement and expertise generally, simple sound builds are the way to go, regardless of the weight. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 No FH, they should all be together and the classes should be what the diehards want. Aside from engineering it's not that hard, the other way is like saying all the women should be kicked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Crikey TP... You got the craps or what?You know it was Ozzie's voice that first alerted me to the depth of the problem at Ra-Aus when he hit the stonewall when trying to re-rego his Lazair with its original numbers. That was what set me to sniffing about and when I realized that there may be some fishy business going on at Fyswick... Just because someone doesn't run for the board or take on more responsibility is not a reason to attack their right as a $180 something dollars right to have a say and question... I know myself personally would be happy to run as a Board Rep... BUT... I do not believe that I would offer value as a Rep so I won't put my hand up... This is not about individuals it is about our organization and every member being supported to have their say.. a LOT of what Ozzie says is spot on... of course it would be considering he has been flying Ultralights pretty much since they were invented. Seriously TP... as a mate... and we have met... take a few breaths... I have noticed a few critical posts over the last few days... We need your level headed brain not your grumpy grandpa one... lol No, just trying to get members off their arses before they lose their Association. Now is the time for Ozzie's wise voice to have plenty to say, to quieten down some of the chatter about forming Companies, alternative bodies, developing pie in the sky policies etc, none of which will put the fire out. I clearly haven't provoked him enough yet I'm not asking members to stand for board positions, that's up to them, but every member needs to be thumping the table now, and 12,500 are not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I got moderated for less than that. What is wrong with Ozzie's plane? I would like to see more of those and the LSA's thrown out the window after all which of these brought on all the groundings. I'm trying to get him out and sticking up for those aircraft. I agree about the LSA's, it all sounds like a bit of a worldwide scam to me, the whole concept, and if the RAA Members had not been denied a vote on it, I don't think RAA would have the mess it has today. This may still come to haunt a few of the past and present board members, depending on who is out of pocket and by how much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 You paid your $187.00 to cover staff and admin costs, but the board members only represent what you want, or should.Ozzie has been crapping on about some number, or A Model Fords or something in four word sentences for years, but they ain't gunna bring back Prohibition, and he needs to spell out what today's RAA should be doing about hair dryer powered aircraft, or it'll get lost in a big LSA Tsunami. We got washed away in the first flood when they hacked up the original 95:10 to fit in the fat overweight ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 What's to stop it being re-introduced 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 What's to stop it being re-introduced The RAAus, that's what stopping real affordable flying with minimum regulation and constant hand in pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well you own RAAus............... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Here is just one example over the last couple of days of S Runcimans communication with a well respected aircraft representative:-------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:09:55 +1100 Steve I sincerely hope that the backlog of new registrations will be cleared before anyone goes away on holiday? Seeing as RAAus mismanagement has caused these huge problems, the least you can do is get it sorted - weekends, evenings, days which are not public holidays. I don't mean working 9-5. You lot made the mess - now get it sorted out!!! Please confirm. Regards ---------------------------------------------- Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:53:29 +0000 (note: cc'd to all board) Dear Mr X, I am in the Military and if I was presented with 'now get it sorted out!!!' from one of my senior officers it would no doubt get a response from me. However, on the board of RA-Aus I am a volunteer and I do not deserve to be corresponded to in such a manner, nor will I accept it. If you care to correspond with me in a courteous manner I will be happy to provide a suitable response! Steve Runciman President RA-Aus ---------------------------------------------- On 01/12/2012, at 1:44 AM Good on ya Steve. I too am heartily sick of the disrespectful way the board and in particular the executive are treated by some members. Regards Gavin ---------------------------------------------- Hello Steve As you have chosen to copy in a large number of people on what was intended to be a private email to you - so be it. Maybe we can get a few things clear: 1. In my experience respect has to be earned, not demanded. I have also learned that those who demand respect are those who least deserve it. Simply being RA-Aus president does not entitle you to respect, your actions and responses do. So far I have seen and heard nothing which suggests I should afford you the respect you crave. Not the least of which is your response to my phone calls and emails. 2. Ignorance is no defence. 'I didn't see the signs' is not an acceptable defence against speeding - or much else for that matter. Ask the captain of the Titanic. 3. I applied for two new aircraft registrations weeks ago. First the Technical Manager prevaricated. Then other employees gave me something about a computer problem. Then eventually I heard that RA-Australia had failed an audit and that CASA had withdrawn RA-Aus's permission to issue registrations of any kind. I was not told this by any official at RA-Aus. Communication by the Board to the members is clearly not a strong point. 4. It subsequently transpires that RA-Aus has failed several CASA audits - most of which were conducted (to continue your military analogy) under your watch. None of these failures was, as far as I can find, communicated to the members. As a result, it could safely be construed that the RA-Aus Board and management is in a complete mess. You are the titular head of the organisation and thus ultimately responsible. The buck as they say, stops with you. 5. In any other organisation which is an untenable position such as this, the Board takes responsibility. I see you chose not to circulate my email asking you whether you felt any responsibility for the present situation. And I note your lack of reply to that question. Meanwhile, I will continue to make excuses on RA-Aus behalf to the owners, buyers and prospective buyers of the aircraft I represent. After all, on the present showing, this situation appears to be nobody's responsibility - least of all, it seems, yours. I have thought long and hard about the content of Ian's post, as above, and I have seen what purports to be the original of this email exchange. I am staggered at our President's attitude on this issue. While I assume that there may have been other emails outside these four quoted above, I do not find the email by a very concerned and financially effected aircraft importer (and I assume an RAA member) too bad when he writes to the President and says ......... "Seeing as RAAus mismanagement has caused these huge problems, the least you can do is get it sorted - weekends, evenings, days which are not public holidays. I don't mean working 9-5. You lot made the mess - now get it sorted out!!! " Perhaps our President doesn't like three exclamation marks!!!, but I can't see what has set him off and surely any reasonable leader would cut the emailer some slack knowing the extreme magnitude of hurt that the RAA's c*ckups are causing our suppliers, importers and distributors. But for our fearless leader to reportedly reply ....... "I am in the Military and if I was presented with 'now get it sorted out!!!' from one of my senior officers it would no doubt get a response from me. However, on the board of RA-Aus I am a volunteer and I do not deserve to be corresponded to in such a manner, nor will I accept it. If you care to correspond with me in a courteous manner I will be happy to provide a suitable response! " ...... is appalling and unreasonable. Now he is in the military, & the internet says he is in "Logistics and Supply" (so to precis the President's words used above, if a Colonel wants a pencil, Steve's your man), but for the President to hide behind the "I'm a volunteer" mantle and then refuse to answer, while copying his reply to the entire Board, is weak if not pathetic, it shows no comprehension of Board and fiduciary responsibility, and it shows an aloofness (and a sense of irony) particularly when it has been reported numerous times that this President has a tendancy to attack Board Members who don't lick his boots (see Board Member John McK's post/email to the President where he advised that this President heaped "toxic waste" on him in the words in an email). The above email from the President deserves strong condemnation, in my opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also question Gavin's contribution, which reminds me of a yapping foxy on a chain. (In future, all members must remember that they must, to use some of Gavins words, treat our Board and Executive with respect before they'll give you a reply) Geez Gavin, give us a break & it didn't take you long to become Steve's sycophant !!! Regards Geoff 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I am too disgusted to actually put what I am thinking here... Let just say that this confirms they are all out with the Fairies... 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