David Isaac Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Comical - Don Ramsay has put an unhelpful tag on one of my posts. Not that I care, but for someone against its use I find it comical that he then uses it - maybe just shouldn't be used on his friends but OK for others??????? Hi Frank, I actually read Don's comment as not being against the use of the 'unhelpful' icon, but suggesting that if it is used, some explanation would be constructive. It has been used on me four times and I am none the wiser as to why. So some explanation would be of benefit as I am sure none of us are intentionally 'unhelpful'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Hi Frank, I actually read Don's comment as not being against the use of the 'unhelpful' icon, but suggesting that if it is used, some explanation would be constructive. It has been used on me four times and I am none the wiser as to why. So some explanation would be of benefit as I am sure none of us are intentionally 'unhelpful'. David you probably said something that someone didn't like, it is a wonder I have not had a million of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 When weighing up CASA costs versus RA don't forget to factor in the commercial side of things. Every GA school in the country has to renew their AOC every few years at a cost of $400-800. Then the instructors need to renew their licences every couple of years which is often with CASA staff at a cost of an extra $400-600. Basically they're charged $160 per hour that it takes a CASA officer to look over things or drive out to visit them. I would assume all the GA maintenance organisations and LAME's are the same. Interested to know the monetary contribution to RAA of those that make money from RAA? From what i can see there are a quite a few manufacturers/importers out there for one thing who've made a great deal of money for themselves from the existence of RAA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I would like some to explain why I get "optimistic" occasionally. It's probably used in a disparaging way. I reckon some don't read what you write, carefully. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I blame the bulk of the projected loss on the wage rises that were given to staff by the dysfunctional Board and the previous GM, well before the EGM, and what we are seeing now is the flow-on effect in addition to, or partly caused by, the cost of being located in Canberra. Would you care to comment on that Sue, from your review of the accounts? Regards Geoff Rat, I thought you had let your membership lapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Rat, I thought you had let your membership lapse. Col,what has that got to do with Rat's statement or question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Rat, I thought you had let your membership lapse. G'day Col, I did. But that does not mean that I don't retain an abiding interest in the wellbeing of the organisation (or ongoing strong support for those members who are contributing to the much improved Board). I had set my sights on the RPL, mainly because of aircraft weight issues for my required use, but that has turned out to be another non-brilliant CASA concept that looks like it really adds little to the options that already existed. May have to go back to RA-Aus cap (and stewed ant certificate) in hand. And while commenting on matters RA-Aus, I wonder if you and others find it very interesting & coincidental that soon after RA-Aus stood up in a fully professional & business-like manner and approached (& perhaps challenged) CASA about their presently inequitable funding contribution, a petition comes to light administered by (a?) past and somewhat diminished Board Member(s) (who showed their depth of misunderstanding of the key RA-Aus's issues when questioned at the EGM) and given that some of these individuals are connected at the hip, I wonder whether someone at CASA might perhaps be into trying to destabilise the present RA-Aus Board. And I further wonder whether such individuals, if they perhaps do exist, have ever manipulated RA-Aus outcomes in the past? Just wondering as surely that couldn't be happening, could it? I urge all members to check it out. Have you heard any rumblings Col? Regards Geoff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 You are starting to sound a bit like ME Geoff. There has been a smell all along. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 G'day Col, I did. But that does not mean that I don't retain an abiding interest in the wellbeing of the organisation (or ongoing strong support for those members who are contributing to the much improved Board). I had set my sights on the RPL, mainly because of aircraft weight issues for my required use, but that has turned out to be another non-brilliant CASA concept that looks like it really adds little to the options that already existed. May have to go back to RA-Aus cap (and stewed ant certificate) in hand. And while commenting on matters RA-Aus, I wonder if you and others find it very interesting & coincidental that soon after RA-Aus stood up in a fully professional & business-like manner and approached (& perhaps challenged) CASA about their presently inequitable funding contribution, a petition comes to light administered by (a?) past and somewhat diminished Board Member(s) (who showed their depth of misunderstanding of the key RA-Aus's issues when questioned at the EGM) and given that some of these individuals are connected at the hip, I wonder whether someone at CASA might perhaps be into trying to destabilise the present RA-Aus Board. And I further wonder whether such individuals, if they perhaps do exist, have ever manipulated RA-Aus outcomes in the past? Just wondering as surely that couldn't be happening, could it? I urge all members to check it out. Have you heard any rumblings Col? Regards Geoff Ah, which bit to snip? Geoff, Your not going to find out the individual amounts paid to staff by examining the annual or even quarterly accounts. A surge in the total wages bill might be because of many things and in this regard, lately, that it was being paid to additional staff or improved talent required to clear up the little mysteries of life created by the, apparent, lack of management in the past. I have a lot more faith in Jim (and Don) than ANY of their predecessors as Treasurer or Mike as the previous Secretary. Mike is setting the right tone as president. In the case of previous CEOs, their remuneration, relocation expenses and termination payments may have been questionable and, in the case of other staff perhaps we were getting the performance commensurate with remuneration. But, having set new parameters for RAA employment, it is time to move on, unless you want a forensic investigation of value for money for people who are now long gone. Yes, I can imagine that a petition to CASA has been drawn up but I suspect that I am not on the invite list for the same reason that you are, I also signed the requisition for the EGM. I don't have much faith in the majority of the current board, or their predecessors, except the current Executive (and the Madge), who appear to be intent on dragging RAA into the 2010s. They are, however, in a the minority and there are still lots of things yet to be revealed. We are still waiting for the draft Ops manual, one of the reasons Tizzard was hired, but it still not open to viewing by the members, nor approved by CASA. Thanks for your continued interest. hopefully you will rejoin (real soon now) - we need your vote in the forthcoming elections. Col 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I blame the bulk of the projected loss on the wage rises that were given to staff by the dysfunctional Board and the previous GM, well before the EGM, and what we are seeing now is the flow-on effect in addition to, or partly caused by, the cost of being located in Canberra. Would you care to comment on that Sue, from your review of the accounts? Regards Geoff I am out in the Boonies on the farm with only one bar to no service, so bear with me if I can't get into a lively debate - Telstra (#%#**&!!) service. The Annual Reports from 2007 to 2012 have very little detail to judge what exactly is going on with wages. I am aware that lately some have been contractors rather than employees. I think this was the CASA rego checker after the Audit fail, and one of the Tech staff. Year & $(employee exp + annual leave accrual). Note year 2007 = 2006/07 financial year 2007 $508,211 2008 $508,729 2009 $651,410 2010 $868,396 2011 $840,690 2012 $1,075,708 2013 $1,089,325 increase from 2007 = 2.14 times Key Personnel - defined as "Any person(s) having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the association" 2008 $212,458 2009 $222,872 2010 $399,694 2011 $379,887 2012 $470,429 This looks like some other staff have been added to the Key Personnel rather than a couple getting big pay rises. Post employment benefit is also included in this figure. Note we had vacancies in the CEO & Tech area which may account for the drop around 2011. The Annual Report is a public document, provided to members each year and also available to anyone who asks from the Dept of Justice & Community Safety ACT. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 spending the kitty on wages and benefits instead of investing in computerization of core processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I am out in the Boonies on the farm with only one bar to no service, so bear with me if I can't get into a lively debate - Telstra (#%#**&!!) service. The Annual Reports from 2007 to 2012 have very little detail to judge what exactly is going on with wages. I am aware that lately some have been contractors rather than employees. I think this was the CASA rego checker after the Audit fail, and one of the Tech staff. Year & $(employee exp + annual leave accrual). Note year 2007 = 2006/07 financial year 2007 $508,211 2008 $508,729 2009 $651,410 2010 $868,396 2011 $840,690 2012 $1,075,708 2013 $1,089,325 increase from 2007 = 2.14 times Key Personnel - defined as "Any person(s) having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the association" 2008 $212,458 2009 $222,872 2010 $399,694 2011 $379,887 2012 $470,429 This looks like some other staff have been added to the Key Personnel rather than a couple getting big pay rises. Post employment benefit is also included in this figure. Note we had vacancies in the CEO & Tech area which may account for the drop around 2011. The Annual Report is a public document, provided to members each year and also available to anyone who asks from the Dept of Justice & Community Safety ACT. Sue Thanks for the analysis Sue. BTW it is actually Optus (#%#**&!!) service - supposedly they are the ones pushing Telstra to provide excellent service. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I love my Boost sim, thanks whoever it was here who recommended it ! Telstra Service at an Amaysim price. Just like flying Jetstar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 spending the kitty on wages and benefits instead of investing in computerization of core processes. One of the fundamentals of IT is GIGO - garbage in - garbage out. If you don't have highly trained (expect properly remunerated) staff then it is impossible to develop any sustainable process. The problem with RAA was not the wages paid but the squirreling away of profits (in a not for profit organisation) into a reserve with no visible justification or purpose. Maybe that is why Robbie Costmeyer didn't last - he couldn't see RAA improving without spending money but the board were hoarders without a vision. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 If you write your software properly it will stop you putting garbage in. This isn't rocket science, acting like its harder than it achieves nothing. At the moment the biggest obstacle to fixing the RAA is that no one benefits from fixing the problems apart from the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Year & $(employee exp + annual leave accrual). Note year 2007 = 2006/07 financial year 2007 $508,211 2008 $508,729 2009 $651,410 2010 $868,396 2011 $840,690 2012 $1,075,708 2013 $1,089,325 increase from 2007 = 2.14 times Key Personnel - defined as "Any person(s) having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the association" 2008 $212,458 2009 $222,872 2010 $399,694 2011 $379,887 2012 $470,429 Thanks for your response Sue. To further summarise your figures, the Employee costs more than doubled between 2008 and 2012, the period when the organisation was at its most dysfunctional and it is my understanding that there were no productivity or related gains negotiated in return for those wage hikes. And we all know who was in charge at Board and Office levels during that period. It is the easiest decision in the world to give wage rises when it is not your own money and you are a poor manager, because everyone is a happy bunny after such rises, until the shareholders find out (remember the cone of secrecy that applied during those dark days? ........ well now you know one of the reasons) and the costs come to bite down the track .......... and by that time most managers or Executive members are gone. However there is another side to this equation and that is that for a NFP organisation, if costs rise to this extent, then unless you intend to run down your reserves, income usually needs to rise or be sourced elsewhere to cover it and the same poor management only seems to have given rises internally but didn't have the strength, foresight, wisdom, willingness or knowledge to also manage income. Also please bear in mind that the first really expansive financial reports & summations have only come after Jim Tatlock took up the Treasurer's role. Compare Jim's report to those provided in the past by Reid or Caban. Geeez, in retrospect, we should have jumped on those blokes much earlier than the EGM last year. In response to the comments of others, I don't condemn past Boards for accumulating reserves, but like many of you, I do condemn them for a complete lack of vision with regard to computerisation of RA-Aus's systems. I have mentioned it in another thread, but I was staggered when I went out the back of the Canberra office and saw a paper system for all aircraft rego's, member certification and other administration functions in a compactus file that we got rid of from our company in the early 1980's .......... but also with numerous manila type folders lying around apparently randomly outside the compactus. That gives you a good indication of where the RA-Aus's thinking was back in 2012/13. A good 30 years behind the times. And the RA-Aus membership is still paying that price. Having been part of the selection panel for the last GM, I can also say that the GM's remuneration at that time was not sufficient to attract & retain a top candidate. We were fortunate to get Mark Clayton partly because he had a passion for what RA-Aus does. You may attract a good candidate through their passion for recreational flying, but you have to pay them well to keep them once they see the depth of the carry-over issues with which they are faced. When Mark came on board, I don't think there was one admin function in RA-Aus that was operating effectively or efficiently and the time taken for rego renewals was just the tip of that iceberg. How would any of you like to be GM of RA-Aus in a situation where a bloke (or blokes) at CASA is constantly sniping at you via audits and the like when that bloke knows where many of the bodies were buried, because he was in charge of the shovel for some of the burials, yet he made it all look like your fault. Sure RA-Aus had and has its problems, but I also believe that the way that CASA have handled all of this has been poor and possibly also unconscionable. Regards Geoff 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 So sounds like some people are proposing that CASA give more money to RA-Aus? Looking at a simple logical progression: CASA has outright responsibility for Aviation Safety in Australia and is funded by the Government to do so. CASA has full rights to administer aviation safety as it sees fit within the confines of the various laws and regulations. CASA some years back is approached by a small organisation who proposes to CASA that it has the capacity to look after the safety of its members itself. Its operations are very simple and straightforward and any possible public harm is seen as absolutely minimal. CASA agrees to allow this organisation to operate and for many years things sail along smoothly. The organisation grows organically for some time but is then faced with a period of rapid growth built entirely on the ability of a new range of pseudo-GA aircraft. The organisation now sees itself as a true challenger for and an alternative to having to deal with CASA. BUT it is CASA's responsibility to administer aviation safety. The organisation is now wading into waters that are thoroughly patrolled by CASA. The organisation is demanding more money from CASA in order to support its operations as they have grown to such a significant size that funds from its own members cannot support it. BUT CASA has serious concerns about the organisation. The organisation has failed to do a great many things that it promised CASA it would do in order to properly administer Aviation Safety. SO CASA has lost its trust in the organisation being able to do what it says it will. CASA now finds itself obligated to spend a great deal of its staff's time and resources trying to sort out the organisation. This oversight appears to now be a constant requirement - resulting in the team that oversees the organisation growing in size and resources. So CASA is effectively already providing a great deal more funding to the organisation than it did all that time back. Now the organisation could ask CASA for more money. Many of the organisations members also appear to feel that the organisation is entitled to this money. But once again - it is CASA's responsibility to administer aviation safety and it has full authority to do so in whatever manner it sees fit. If/when the organisation asks for more money then CASA will have to sit down and decide where that money is going to come from. CASA is currently experiencing a tightening of its budget and staff cuts are taking place in some areas.CASA is already funded and has a staff of 702 people to administer aviation safety. It has all the staff, systems and resources it needs to fully administer RAA in-house. What would you do if you were in the CASA directors shoes and were asked for more money from this organisation? Would you take the ammunition already in reserve - there's more than enough to get the necessary political and public support - and shut down RAA althogether? Would you sack some staff (and incur substantial redundancy costs) in the CASA office to make more money funds available to RAA? Or would you perhaps move a few staff around within the CASA office and look at other options? It's not an easy question - does RAA really want to ask it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I can't think of a possible scenario where the RAA is going to qualify for more funding from CASA. 1 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