Relocating the office...where to?

[DonRamsay]

. . .Don what progress if any has been made in regards to the board size (that you're aware of)? I was disappointed to not see any mention at the last AGM or Board meeting.

I believe there is a majority on the Board who are in favour of a 5 or 7 person Board. The CEO also favours a more practical sized Board and is keen to do some development on the subject.

However, it is not first cab off the rank. First you have to decide on the form of incorporation - is ther something better than incorporated association? Then you need to chose a jurisdiction and Canberra is not favoured. Then you can decide the Board size and how it is elected.

 

Then you need to encode that in a plain English constitution and get it accepted by 75% of members who chose to vote.

 

I haven't seen much in the way of actual work being done on this but it could be happening for all I know.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

But there are other threats like CASA rationalising registration and licensing and rationalising RAA into an advocacy organisation to be eventually absorbed by AOPA.

Personally I see RA-AUS doing away with licensing all together as a good thing, reduced costs and allows the association to focus on registration, aircraft making and maintenance (overseeing). As well as providing more in the way of advocacy. However we do need to sort the mess known as RPL and Recreational Medical prior to any movement on that front.

 

I believe there is a majority on the Board who are in favour of a 5 or 7 person Board. The CEO also favours a more practical sized Board and is keen to do some development on the subject.However, it is not first cab off the rank. First you have to decide on the form of incorporation - is ther something better than incorporated association? Then you need to chose a jurisdiction and Canberra is not favoured. Then you can decide the Board size and how it is elected.

 

Then you need to encode that in a plain English constitution and get it accepted by 75% of members who chose to vote.

 

I haven't seen much in the way of actual work being done on this but it could be happening for all I know.

I would have thought a change of the constitution in terms of the number of board members would be the first step, then everything else will be easier to address. Downing sizing the board shouldn't be attached to moving from Canberra or legal frame work of the association.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Actually it doesn't appear a change of the constitution is required. I can't find any reference to the number of board members other then 7 are required for a quorum. Is a resolution required to amend Appendix B? Also 12(i) seems to suggest the board can decide it's own size?

 

12 (i) The Board shall consist of financial Members representing each Region, in the numbers described

in Appendix B, or such other number as may be determined from time to time by the Board.

[coljones]

Actually it doesn't appear a change of the constitution is required. I can't find any reference to the number of board members other then 7 are required for a quorum. Is a resolution required to amend Appendix B? Also 12(i) seems to suggest the board can decide it's own size?

I would suspect that the board can change the regional representation hence the size of the board but can't change the electorates. There was a move a couple of years ago to reduce SQld by 1 and increase Vic by 1 to better represent the actual number of members in NSW, SQld and Vic but the Queenslanders had a hissy fit invoking the Magna Carta, Human Rights, natural justice, Regional and Rural Australia and the commies in Canberra and got the proxies out to defeat it.

The argument put to me is that small boards work better. It has been put to me that only half the previous board were up to the job. I haven't seen any great evidence that the current board is doing much better and there is no guarantee that a smaller board will have a 100% participation rate. It may well be that a smaller board will have a willing 3 person exec and the rest are just along for the ride. Democracy can be a bitch sometimes.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Just picture the following advertisement "Experience AusFly 2017 at XXXX airfield, the leading recreational aviation facility in Australia and proud home to RAAus and SAAA". As a member, that sort of promotion makes me feel better about my organisation.

Before we get anywhere near to this, there is going to have to come the admission that Temora was a mistake and it killed what we had. Seems many are still loath to make that admission.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Personally I see RA-AUS doing away with licensing all together as a good thing, reduced costs and allows the association to focus on registration, aircraft making and maintenance (overseeing). As well as providing more in the way of advocacy. However we do need to sort the mess known as RPL and Recreational Medical prior to any movement on that front.

 

----------------

 

Doing away with licensing would be a big step. CASA instructor rating (CPL and class 1 medical) GA school. Apart from those RAA instructors who were prepared to upgrade, I would suspect there would be a limited number with experience on the Drifter/Thruster etc style of aircraft to instruct/BFR etc.

 

 

 

Reduced costs - it may result in reduced costs for RAA but I suspect the opposite would occur for students/pilots.

[SDQDI]

I agree frank, if RAA stopped licensing it would be close to a disaster. Just for starters look at the difference in getting an RPL drivers licence medical compared to our medical declaration, we would lose a lot of passionate flyers straight up.

 

I don't mind the idea of a merge with saaa IF we have our affairs in order, but losing or giving up the licensing privileges would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I believe there is a majority on the Board who are in favour of a 5 or 7 person Board. The CEO also favours a more practical sized Board and is keen to do some development on the subject.However, it is not first cab off the rank. First you have to decide on the form of incorporation - is ther something better than incorporated association? Then you need to chose a jurisdiction and Canberra is not favoured. Then you can decide the Board size and how it is elected.

 

Then you need to encode that in a plain English constitution and get it accepted by 75% of members who chose to vote.

 

I haven't seen much in the way of actual work being done on this but it could be happening for all I know.

Hello Don

 

Be careful of giving the CEO to much freedom of guiding the board size..

 

The board and a push from the members will govern the size of the board the CEO may give them ideas however that information is only in an advisory capacity.

 

In a simplistic nut shell the the board gives direction and the CEO makes it happen.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi rankamature,

 

You are correct about Temora...trying to get the board members responsible for the move to admit it was a stuff up. The other point ---- the movers and shakers for that debacle and still are doing things within RAAus movement.

 

We do not hear:- "Sorry we made a mistake"..

 

Instead the members do get the blame by way of the no loyalty yells.

 

..........Regarding board size..........

 

The board size --- in Southern Queensland we have three living in each other's pocket --- to me that equates to one person.

 

We had a fly in at Thangool the Nth Qld board member made the effort to get there with his effort he received the greatest distance flown , we only had one board member from the Sth ---- remember Thangool is in the Southern region.

 

I am of the view the board members should be out there giving the normal members help in promoting RAAus.

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[rankamateur]

I am of the view the board members should be out there giving the normal members help in promoting RAAus.

Only with-in the limitations of that being a voluntary position, they have lives to live too remember. Having three members for South QLD we could probably expect to see a board member at most of the major events on the calendar, if the board size is reduced we need to be prepared to do some of the leg work to have our concerns heard by our board reps.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Personally I see RA-AUS doing away with licensing all together as a good thing, reduced costs and allows the association to focus on registration, aircraft making and maintenance (overseeing). As well as providing more in the way of advocacy. However we do need to sort the mess known as RPL and Recreational Medical prior to any movement on that front.

Let's hope the new AV Med boss has a better approach to the Drivers Licence medical.

 

I would have thought a change of the constitution in terms of the number of board members would be the first step, then everything else will be easier to address. Downing sizing the board shouldn't be attached to moving from Canberra or legal frame work of the association.

An interesting thought. Could be a good way to go about it. Must admit I don't think anyone else has given that approach much consideration. As you know, we've done a fair bit of fiddling at the edges of the current rules and most of us were thinking the next change should be everything in one go. The reduced Board numbers and how they get elected are likely to be the biggest hurdles for the parochial knuckle-draggers to get past but a smaller Board could then get on and do the rest of what's needed more efficiently.

 

Rewriting the existing Constitution just to reduce the number on the Board and how they are elected could be done. It's still a big re-write. You could drop a note to Michael Linke and suggest it as I'm pretty sure he doesn't read this forum eveen though many Board Members do.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Only with-in the limitations of that being a voluntary position, they have lives to live too remember. Having three members for South QLD we could probably expect to see a board member at most of the major events on the calendar, if the board size is reduced we need to be prepared to do some of the leg work to have our concerns heard by our board reps.

Yes you are correct with the board members being voluntary positions..

 

However go to their mission statements pre their election and how things would be so great and wonderful under their watch only what we had to do was vote for them. If one yaps a lot I think it is only fair they get some stick, it is a case of empty promises. I am a strong advocate of promoting and succession planning hence we all should be out there pushing the virtues of RAAus.

 

With regard the smaller board we only have to have some smaller subcommittees who can advise the board member, as I see it not too hard, just diligent people.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . It may well be that a smaller board will have a willing 3 person exec and the rest are just along for the ride. Democracy can be a bitch sometimes.

With a smaller Board and 21st Century communications, there is no reason to have an Exec at all. All decisions could be by a Board majority and passed to the CEO for execution.

 

Where a meeting with an external organisation could enter into Policy issues then the President may have to accompany the CEO to ensure the Board's Policy responsibility is properly looked after.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . With regard the smaller board we only have to have some smaller subcommittees who can advise the board member, as I see it not too hard, just diligent people.

Keith,

 

I agree that we have severely under-used the sub-committee resource. When I was on the Board I set up the original Constitution Review Committee as a Board sub-committee to report to the Board. Sadly, it was dismissed in spite by Runciman but the sub-committee concept was a good one in that it taps into the resource of quality people with time available for such work. It could allow many projects to proceed in parallel.

 

Don

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Doing away with licensing would be a big step. CASA instructor rating (CPL and class 1 medical) GA school. Apart from those RAA instructors who were prepared to upgrade, I would suspect there would be a limited number with experience on the Drifter/Thruster etc style of aircraft to instruct/BFR etc. 

 

Reduced costs - it may result in reduced costs for RAA but I suspect the opposite would occur for students/pilots

I could be wrong but 61.1185 suggests a PPL is all that's required for an instructors rating, and don't RA-AUS instructors already need a medical? If that's not the case it could form part of our CAO (to operate/train in RAA aircraft). It would be cheaper in that the cost of administrating pilot certificates would be passed on to members in reduced memberships, how much we won't know until the CEO releases his activity costings report. Cost per hour in flight training may go up, however I don't see why since it's the same aircraft costs and if RAA provides the Part 141 framework for FTFs there shouldn't be change to how they operate (in terms of costings).

 

I agree frank, if RAA stopped licensing it would be close to a disaster. Just for starters look at the difference in getting an RPL drivers licence medical compared to our medical declaration, we would lose a lot of passionate flyers straight up.I don't mind the idea of a merge with saaa IF we have our affairs in order, but losing or giving up the licensing privileges would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

As per my comment, work would need to be done to bring the Medical process in line with what we have now, the idea being you'd simply replace the RPC with a RPL and not notice any change in how you operate.

 

 

[frank marriott]

That would be interesting to see how the "not for hire or reward " fits into the scheme of things. I suppose it happens now with RAA.

 

 

[coljones]

I could be wrong but 61.1185 suggests a PPL is all that's required for an instructors rating, and don't RA-AUS instructors already need a medical? If that's not the case it could form part of our CAO (to operate/train in RAA aircraft). It would be cheaper in that the cost of administrating pilot certificates would be passed on to members in reduced memberships, how much we won't know until the CEO releases his activity costings report. Cost per hour in flight training may go up, however I don't see why since it's the same aircraft costs and if RAA provides the Part 141 framework for FTFs there shouldn't be change to how they operate (in terms of costings).

 

As per my comment, work would need to be done to bring the Medical process in line with what we have now, the idea being you'd simply replace the RPC with a RPL and not notice any change in how you operate.

If the RPL replaced the RPC there would be an immediate dash by members out the the door of RAA as that would remove the major reason for joining RAA in the first place ie the need to remain a member of RAA to maintain eligibility for an RPC. Equivalence of an RPC to an RPL would also imply equivalence of an RPL/PPL to an RPC.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

If the RPL replaced the RPC there would be an immediate dash by members out the the door of RAA as that would remove the major reason for joining RAA in the first place ie the need to remain a member of RAA to maintain eligibility for an RPC. Equivalence of an RPC to an RPL would also imply equivalence of an RPL/PPL to an RPC.

However in order to operate an aircraft registered under the CAO's you'd still need to be a member and operate under the Ops and Tech Manuals (as per the CAO's). You may lose some members who are happy to fly the old cessnas, however you may also gain some builders interested in "our" way over the VH experimental.

 

Consider the CAO's becoming more about aircraft building/operating and less about piloting (covered by Part 61).

 

Anyhow, this has gotten way of topic from the original thread about relocating the HQ

 

 

[rhysmcc]

That would be interesting to see how the "not for hire or reward " fits into the scheme of things. I suppose it happens now with RAA.

frank I may have gotten it wrong, further into the doc it does list requirements for different instructional endorsements, the only one not needing a CPL is design endorsements. So the CAO would need to include an exemption maybe.

 

 

[coljones]

However in order to operate an aircraft registered under the CAO's you'd still need to be a member and operate under the Ops and Tech Manuals (as per the CAO's). You may lose some members who are happy to fly the old cessnas, however you may also gain some builders interested in "our" way over the VH experimental.Consider the CAO's becoming more about aircraft building/operating and less about piloting (covered by Part 61).

 

Anyhow, this has gotten way of topic from the original thread about relocating the HQ

If CASA does the licencing that may all go, it may well be that the generic RPL covers all aircraft SE Piston aircraft less than 1500kg including fleas - do you need to belong to SAAA fly an experimental? If there is a flood of departures because we can fly RAA planes without being members there won't be much left of RAA except into a coat cupboard somewhere - maybe in the SAAA office.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I believe you need to be a member to build the aircraft (with the assistance of the SAAA). The aircraft that are currently registered under RAA would still be so, therefore you will still need to be a member to operate them.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

At this point in time, builders/operators of GA experimental aircraft are not required to be members of the SAAA. Pilots are fully licensed and aircraft are VH registered, both these functions being administered by CASA. Even the inspection for the issue of a CofA is conducted by a CASA Authorised Person (AP), most but not all of whom happen to be members of the SAAA, but are not acting in any SAAA capacity.

 

 

[Yenn]

Yes you do need to be an SAAA member to build an experimental aircraft, except that you may be legally able to do it without SAAA, but you would have to have CASA approved people involved, or to state it another way, you couldn't afford it.

 

I don't know if it would be possible to get an aircraft built under RAAus , re registered as experimental if you built it and are an SAAA member. That would apply to me with the Corby Starlet, but it is a trip i am not going to try travelling.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Yes you do need to be an SAAA member to build an experimental aircraft, except that you may be legally able to do it without SAAA, but you would have to have CASA approved people involved, or to state it another way, you couldn't afford it.

Hi Yenn,

 

I'm not sure if you made a typo in your first sentence but no, you do not need to be a SAAA member to build, register and obtain a CofA for a VH experimental aircraft.

 

The SAAA certainly supports and assists during the build/registration process but that is all. The SAAA offers guidance to builders in the form of their Technical Councillors. These experienced TCs are volunteers who are available to provide advice to builders and who, at the builders request can offer stage inspections on the builders project. These voluntary stage inspections can serve two purposes: the first is that there is an experienced set of eyes to look over the workmanship of the builder and the TC can make suggestions (but not mandate any changes) regarding the build; the second benefit of these TC stage inspections is that as part of the SAAA Builder Assist Program(BAP), three stage inspections carried out by a TC during the course of a build qualifies that aircaft for discounted insurance premiums with the SAAA's recommended insurer.

 

Another role of the voluntary TCs is to prepare the builder for the final CofA inspection by the CASA AP (who is not necessarily a CASA employee or member of the SAAA).

 

The TCs generally do not charge for the inspections that they conduct. However, it is customary for the builder who requests the inspection to look after the out of pocket expenses for the TC and usually, there's some hospitality thrown in after the inspection.

 

The SAAA also offers a CofA pack which contains a checklist and relevant documentation to ensure that the applicant for a CofA is fully prepared for the inspection and has completed all the requirements to pass the CofA inspection.

 

So again, at this point in time, the SAAA has no "authority" in respect of registering an aircraft in the GA experimental category and no one is under any compulsion to be a member of the SAAA to do so. The benefit of joining the SAAA is that there is a lot of experience and support available to a builder to facilitate an easier path through the CofA application process.

 

All applicants for a VH experimental certificate will have their inspection done by a CASA AP (not an SAAA AP - there is no such thing). However, some of the CASA APs (who all do charge for their inspections) are also members of the SAAA and their inspection rates may be preferential to SAAA members.

 

Yenn, if you have complied with the 51% rule during the construction of your Corby and you have the required evidence to prove it, you may contact any one of the CASA APs to carry out your CofA inspection. Having operated your Corby under the RAAus system does not preclude it from being eligible for VH experimental registration and the cost to do so would not necessarily be any higher for you than for a SAAA member to register your aircraft. Again, you do not need to be a member of the SAAA to do this.

 

All that said, I would certainly welcome you into the SAAA if ever you decided to supplement your RAAus membership with a SAAA one! A buddy of mine is in the throes of finishing a Corby with a (err herm..) Jab 2200 (gasp of horror from some...)

 

Cheers

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

If it's too hard to move HQ from Canberra, then RAAus should work to make it easier for us to fly little planes there.

 

For those who haven't been following David Edmunds and his team at CRAA, they have been trying to establish a small airport near the national capital. Unfortunately they haven't got the resources to build a Welcamp, and it seems petty bureaucrats are determined to stop them. Is our Association helping?

 

http://www.canberrasecondairport.com/december-2014