DrZoos Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (b) how can anyone recruit pilots when some of the RAAus staff turn up -- they are resented like police turning up to spoil the fun. Which staff Keith? If you have that 'attitude' about Operations staff attending an event, then who do you suggest? CASA? And what do you mean by 'fun'.......... some good old fashioned illegal low flying done by the great untrained? Perhaps a few, (non aerobatic of course) wingovers and stall turns? Give us a break! As for 'recruiting' pilots - that's primarily a job for the FTF's because their business depends on training new pilots. I don't think any CFI's would be unhappy about RAAus Ops staff turning up for a local flyin or other aviation event. Be nice to see them on our own turf actually. If we know they're coming, it can be used for local promotion of flying training - a win for everyone. I reckon you're way off track here. happy days, 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 Hello All I am home from my tour of duty and working from the I-Pad. I-Pads are good but they fall short on some tasks. This constitution is important and we all need to have a read and all have our 2 bobs worth in the mix. Does not concern me as to which side of the fence you are on just need to have an educated decision when it comes to voting time because no one can whinge if they did not vote or form a view. Have all the fact clear in ones mind, not in a convoluted form from some other person pushing their wheel barrow full of hidden agendas. Andy I will address your interpretations over the week end. Regard, KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Not a complicated equation the board member lives in Sydney..Cairns needs something Sydney needs something.. Sydney wins.. We have to close the avenues for that to ever happen, if we let it in then discover it does not work, imagine all the pain we suffer while we are discovering it dose not work, have you ever thought how much effort and wasted resources involved to reverse that debacle. Regards, KP I'm not sure that Sydney gets anything at the moment. Sydney West Airport (Badgerys Creek) may yet squeeze the life out of both GA and RA in the Sydney Basin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 The "progress" near Sydney has been constantly heading in that direction. Even of you stay the costs will go up and delays inevitable. Big problem. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Have you all looked at the draft constitution? What do you think about the aims of RAAus as proposed? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 My points on some of what is mentioned previously in this thread or the draft in general: - Just because there will be a structural change to the organisation (ie. Directors) does not mean we cannot have equal representation by states. I'm not a lawyer and haven't been an accountant for a number of years but if I'm not mistaken it can be in the constitution still to have Directors based on state who are not remunerated (so in essence would function similar to the existing board) but they would be operating under a limited liability protecting their personal assets (I have no problem with this). Note: Ever since attending the Jacobs Well AGM I have had concerns of the limit of our liability as members and the boards refusal at that time to monetise potential liabilities for "legal" reasons. For that reason I let me membership lapse at the time until they were resolved. The new structure would actually make me feel a lot safer as a member (shareholder). - Change to remove the ability of a Director to cancel membership application once the 30 day period is passed... Though I would like a very stringent and open process if an application is rejected so that all members are aware exactly why. Not some very vague and still secretive statement by the board. - The objectives of the company under clause 6 I think are right on. Notice that it does not include increase membership, enter into competition with other aviation bodies or associations. We are not about making profits but breaking even. - I don't find the points limiting directors from being representative of states to be compelling enough to do away with state based representation. I think my points re: directors above should be pertinent. Clause 14 therefore should be rewritten. I think if membership is disallowed there does need to be a reason (remember Ian from here a while back?) given to the applicant. Privacy unfortunately may limit reasoning given in a public forum however as members we should have the right to know if and how many applications are being rejected and under what conditions. To this end a list of conditions for the reason to reject applications should also be included in the constitution. Clause 17. If a limit to privilege or removal of a member is to occur due to disciplinary action, a third party mediator should be required by the constitution. Not some poor 18 year old who has made a mistake being hauled in front of the board and booted. Clause 30. I see no reason that the chairman should be able to veto a right to vote. Period. Clause 34.1 If we are to have representative based directors then of course 7 may not be enough... Although that is 1 per state/territory (kind of) Clause 36.1 Refers to clause 35.6... Of which there is no clause 35.6. Who did we pay to write this? Clause 36.4 - Again the mythical 35.6. Maybe I am missing something. Clause 36.6 - Refers to clause 37.7, which I believe may have absconded with clause 35.6 Clause 40.4 - I like this clause. I say that it should be the exception and we should only vote to pay a director under very very special circumstances (ie. they were hired on as a director due to some kind of expertise but I don't see a reason for this to happen). This is all I have got to atm. Will have a read of the rest of the clauses for my continued opinion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Ok I've read the rest. A tonne of incorrect references to clauses gives me concern that this is a cut and page deal by a solicitor and really makes me question the quality of the advice received. I think the board should be insisting o.k. higher quality work. As a matter of fact i expect more from the board. Did no-one read this before publishing it? It is appalling! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 where you aware of the MARAP screw up from earlier this year? the board are wanting certified repairs or at least a certified paper trail for experimental aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 If it's that bad, the critical thing is to go right through it and make sure there are no self-interest clauses, or different clauses which might cost members more money, or otherwise give them grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 Ok I've read the rest. A tonne of incorrect references to clauses gives me concern that this is a cut and page deal by a solicitor and really makes me question the quality of the advice received.I think the board should be insisting o.k. higher quality work. As a matter of fact i expect more from the board. Did no-one read this before publishing it? It is appalling! Good to hear shags_j that you have twigged on. That was my original intention with this thread was to get the RAAus members have a read of the draft constitution. As you have pointed out in another thread you have read it for them, I want the people to have their own read and see the discrepancies for themselves, so no one can blame me for making it up. The other point with the draft constitution to me it looks like their is some self interest in certain areas. (That why I think some points are ambiguous). Hence my reason for being adamant about state representation. Regards, KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 This re-write of the constitution has gone quiet.. I wonder why.. I think it is what the board is after.. Could be some nasty stuff sneaking through.. Hope I am wrong needs checking on with a fine tooth comb.. What is tabled is one thing and the real thing is waiting in the wind somewhere.. Remember it is a member based organisation, not full of paid directors. Regards, KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 If in doubt you DONT proceed with a constitutional change in an organisation that function pretty damn well right now... there really needs to be a much better case presented as to why all this work and cost is happening.. A smaller board in its current state would have been better. Amalgamate seats for those members representing tiny segments of membership and the jobs done! Sorry Keith but i dont agree that state based representation is fair, or necesary. For 100 members in say NT to get the same vote as a member representing say 1500 members doesnt fairly represent the majority of members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 For 100 members in say NT to get the same vote as a member representing say 1500 members doesnt fairly represent the majority of members. As in Australia (Fed Govt) NSW & VIC could elect the Govt. for the whole of Australia. Whilst I have no doubt some may like that idea as well, the constitution protects the other States from this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Frank for us as RAA members its very different...they are basically just administrators... On the State or federal govt stage, they collect huge taxes from us and then redistribute that in the form of payment, grants and infrastructure. If RAA redistributed huge amounts of money or provided infrastructure I would agree, but they dont... They administer rules that apply Australia wide ... the argument of needing geo specific representation is a little on the soft side compared to having members equally represented based on their percentage of membership... This is way over simplistic and only very briefly and poorly explained, but it highlights a large part of the problem of using the old state based voting system. Take this scenario just as a crazy example. Íf for example Sydney and Melbourne and SE QLD had 70% of RAA members and CASA made changes to laws banning RAA aircraft from those areas. We have the potential situation with a state based situation where NT, WA,SA TAS, ACT could vote and say, now doesn't affect us we don't want any resources spent on fighting this... The potential to end up with decisions that do not favour the majority of members is heightened. Secondly when you have areas with small member numbers and large voting rights eg: FIFA it invites corruption and horse-trading, as smaller areas use their disproportionate power to influence outcomes, achieve greater benefits for their local members than the majority of members can achieve in much more population dense areas... A simple example of such a thing is say RAA wanted to run an L2 maintenance course across the country. and they had enough money to run only 7 workshops in 7 locations... is it really equitable that say QLD with its vast spaces gets one workshop for say 2500 members and NT gets one for say 150 members... (numbers not accurate, just used to highlight a point) or should QLD get two on the first year so that we can serve the majority of members better and NT gets one every 2nd year starting in the 2nd year. That way we as an organisation could not only serve more members with the same amount of money, but we could also achieve higher safety outcomes for a higher percentage of our members and aircraft. I really do feel for members in remote areas...but if we are to truly raise the bar and be the best organisation possible, we cant be dictated to based on equal membership for states when member numbers are so drastically different. Our resources are heavy in the populous states and our efforts need to be as well. VIC is slightly different due to its compressed geography... but NSW and QLD are special cases due to high member numbers and huge sizes of the state with members spread out from one end to the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Frank for us as RAA members its very different...they are basically just administrators...On the State or federal govt stage, they collect huge taxes from us and then redistribute that in the form of payment, grants and infrastructure. If RAA redistributed huge amounts of money or provided infrastructure I would agree, but they dont... They administer rules that apply Australia wide ... the argument of needing geo specific representation is a little on the soft side compared to having members equally represented based on their percentage of membership... This is way over simplistic and only very briefly and poorly explained, but it highlights a large part of the problem of using the old state based voting system. Take this scenario just as a crazy example. Íf for example Sydney and Melbourne and SE QLD had 70% of RAA members and CASA made changes to laws banning RAA aircraft from those areas. We have the potential situation with a state based situation where NT, WA,SA TAS, ACT could vote and say, now doesn't affect us we don't want any resources spent on fighting this... The potential to end up with decisions that do not favour the majority of members is heightened. Secondly when you have areas with small member numbers and large voting rights eg: FIFA it invites corruption and horse-trading, as smaller areas use their disproportionate power to influence outcomes, achieve greater benefits for their local members than the majority of members can achieve in much more population dense areas... A simple example of such a thing is say RAA wanted to run an L2 maintenance course across the country. and they had enough money to run only 7 workshops in 7 locations... is it really equitable that say QLD with its vast spaces gets one workshop for say 2500 members and NT gets one for say 150 members... (numbers not accurate, just used to highlight a point) or should QLD get two on the first year so that we can serve the majority of members better and NT gets one every 2nd year starting in the 2nd year. That way we as an organisation could not only serve more members with the same amount of money, but we could also achieve higher safety outcomes for a higher percentage of our members and aircraft. I really do feel for members in remote areas...but if we are to truly raise the bar and be the best organisation possible, we cant be dictated to based on equal membership for states when member numbers are so drastically different. Our resources are heavy in the populous states and our efforts need to be as well. VIC is slightly different due to its compressed geography... but NSW and QLD are special cases due to high member numbers and huge sizes of the state with members spread out from one end to the other. Therein lies the differing opinions. The amendments most likely will go through with the AGM made up mostly of "locals" to the area. There is always proxy votes if people are concerned enough. Who knows ? I certainly don't, but time will remove the guessing of the outcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Frank for us as RAA members its very different...they are basically just administrators...On the State or federal govt stage, they collect huge taxes from us and then redistribute that in the form of payment, grants and infrastructure. If RAA redistributed huge amounts of money or provided infrastructure I would agree, but they dont... They administer rules that apply Australia wide ... the argument of needing geo specific representation is a little on the soft side compared to having members equally represented based on their percentage of membership... This is way over simplistic and only very briefly and poorly explained, but it highlights a large part of the problem of using the old state based voting system. Take this scenario just as a crazy example. Íf for example Sydney and Melbourne and SE QLD had 70% of RAA members and CASA made changes to laws banning RAA aircraft from those areas. We have the potential situation with a state based situation where NT, WA,SA TAS, ACT could vote and say, now doesn't affect us we don't want any resources spent on fighting this... The potential to end up with decisions that do not favour the majority of members is heightened. Secondly when you have areas with small member numbers and large voting rights eg: FIFA it invites corruption and horse-trading, as smaller areas use their disproportionate power to influence outcomes, achieve greater benefits for their local members than the majority of members can achieve in much more population dense areas... A simple example of such a thing is say RAA wanted to run an L2 maintenance course across the country. and they had enough money to run only 7 workshops in 7 locations... is it really equitable that say QLD with its vast spaces gets one workshop for say 2500 members and NT gets one for say 150 members... (numbers not accurate, just used to highlight a point) or should QLD get two on the first year so that we can serve the majority of members better and NT gets one every 2nd year starting in the 2nd year. That way we as an organisation could not only serve more members with the same amount of money, but we could also achieve higher safety outcomes for a higher percentage of our members and aircraft. I really do feel for members in remote areas...but if we are to truly raise the bar and be the best organisation possible, we cant be dictated to based on equal membership for states when member numbers are so drastically different. Our resources are heavy in the populous states and our efforts need to be as well. VIC is slightly different due to its compressed geography... but NSW and QLD are special cases due to high member numbers and huge sizes of the state with members spread out from one end to the other. and for my 2c I'd prefer to see the end of state based representation for the reasons above but also see removal of people who are still make $$ out of the RAAus industry. Yes we will lose instructors and maintainers from the board ... but the board is not there to DO the technical stuff but represent the members ... but if those individuals have skills that are useful they can be called on from the board and the employed if needed. Its just that the history of RAAus has a wiff of management for the schools and individuals - no specific examples and no name calling but I've been a member since the mid 80's and its my impression of the past 30 years or so 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scre80 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Lots of interesting discussion here. I would still like to see some state based representation on the board. If WA / SA have no one local to represent the state, being more remote than the eastern states, how will we have our voice heard? I am all for change and modernising systems. the sports magazine going online, great move. new site, great move again. Accepting change, some people are great at this while others not so much. The younger generations coming through want more change, flexibility and instant information / communication at the touch of a button. If we area organisation that does not change with the times, becomes more flexible / dynamic and promotes ourselves in social media forms, we are in for a very rough time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 They must be unusually clever if they are making much money out of training and maintenance, but the appearance can be there. A lot of expertise is in that area though. I wouldn't like to see paid staff having an undue say in policy. That should be for the members to decide and there has to be a structure in place to handle it. Members must get off their bums when the opportunity arises to consider policy matters thoughtfully. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Lots of interesting discussion here.I would still like to see some state based representation on the board. If WA / SA have no one local to represent the state, being more remote than the eastern states, how will we have our voice heard? I am all for change and modernising systems. the sports magazine going online, great move. new site, great move again. Accepting change, some people are great at this while others not so much. The younger generations coming through want more change, flexibility and instant information / communication at the touch of a button. If we area organisation that does not change with the times, becomes more flexible / dynamic and promotes ourselves in social media forms, we are in for a very rough time. But WHAT voice needs to be heard from SA and WA that is different from the other states when the definitional coverage of aircraft and operational restrictions on aircraft and pilots is national? As was pointed out above when there is $$$ being collected and redistributed (like the Federal Govt) then there is a visible and fundamental difference between State A and B ... when there is no $$ being collected and redistributed then whats the issue? Yes the RAAus has to cover the geography of the entire country and on things like coverage of training and governance oversight of authorized personnel and operations (instructors, maintainers etc) the fact that the CASA will hold RAAus accountable for ALL people under its banner drives the need to provide oversight and coverage to all areas so there is not really a 'need' for State A to have its 'need' for support and oversight represented on the board. As for sports pilots online ... please comment on how it is an improvement to redesign the layout of ALL the pages for perfect print layout at the expense of online/mobile device reading? The 'improving' online version now can ONLY be read as a two page layout - all the .pdf are two page - and on a mobile reading device like a kindle (specifically designed to read online material) they are now having to be zoomed and wandering around trying to read it - its a terrible move AS IMPLIMENTED. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scre80 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 But WHAT voice needs to be heard from SA and WA that is different from the other states when the definitional coverage of aircraft and operational restrictions on aircraft and pilots is national?As was pointed out above when there is $$$ being collected and redistributed (like the Federal Govt) then there is a visible and fundamental difference between State A and B ... when there is no $$ being collected and redistributed then whats the issue? Yes the RAAus has to cover the geography of the entire country and on things like coverage of training and governance oversight of authorized personnel and operations (instructors, maintainers etc) the fact that the CASA will hold RAAus accountable for ALL people under its banner drives the need to provide oversight and coverage to all areas so there is not really a 'need' for State A to have its 'need' for support and oversight represented on the board. As for sports pilots online ... please comment on how it is an improvement to redesign the layout of ALL the pages for perfect print layout at the expense of online/mobile device reading? The 'improving' online version now can ONLY be read as a two page layout - all the .pdf are two page - and on a mobile reading device like a kindle (specifically designed to read online material) they are now having to be zoomed and wandering around trying to read it - its a terrible move AS IMPLIMENTED. So are you saying that the people in SA / WA / NT & TAS are not import and do not need a voice? also, how easily will a rep from RA Aus attend any events in these states if there is no rep local? funding travel from the eastern states is expensive, especially to WA. As for the sports pilot, I have no issues. A simple double tap on the article you want to read and the device will zoom in to that specific item, works in PDF's and Issuu. If you have suggestions to improve on this, other than just keep it as a printed format, would love to hear it. Remember what I said, to get in touch with the younger generation, they all use tablets or phones. Making the sports pilot online was a need to keep with the current times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 So are you saying that the people in SA / WA / NT & TAS are not import . No we have already clearly stated that is not the case. What we are saying is that the current system ensures that those few members in small member states are massively over represented on the board for no logical reason... Even you yourself have said "funding travel from the eastern states is expensive, especially to WA. " So why enforce that we must have a board member from there and NT and sA and TAS , when perhaps a far better person may be available from another closer state that lives near 5 times as many members ??? There is no black and white answer, we are just hypothesisizing that the current state based system is not as fair or necessary as people would like to think it is. In a sport like soccer where you ahve state titles and state sporting organisations competing for resources and allocation of funds, its crystal clear why it is necsary. But in RAAus we need the best people for the job and that is not necesarily state based. In fact if for a moment we assumed a hypothetical situation where we had 5 members. and they ended up being one from Melbourne, two from Sydney, One from Brisbane and one from say Adelaide...can you imagine how much easier and cheaper board meetings would be to the organisation... They could fly in have the meeting and be home that night.. Im not suggesting thats the best outcome, I am merely proposing that insisting they come from every state may in fact be counter productive to a nimble foward focused and more streamlined RAAus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 It's probably in the constitution to have representation by states. If it makes people happy it's not essential to get a cheaper to run system to that extent.. You need reps. It's your way of inputting and having your say. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Emails, video conferencing, phone calls, web forums....... face to face meetings don't have to be that often in the modern era.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 So are you saying that the people in SA / WA / NT & TAS are not import and do not need a voice? also, how easily will a rep from RA Aus attend any events in these states if there is no rep local? funding travel from the eastern states is expensive, especially to WA.As for the sports pilot, I have no issues. A simple double tap on the article you want to read and the device will zoom in to that specific item, works in PDF's and Issuu. If you have suggestions to improve on this, other than just keep it as a printed format, would love to hear it. Remember what I said, to get in touch with the younger generation, they all use tablets or phones. Making the sports pilot online was a need to keep with the current times. In addition to the comment by DrZoos with which I agree your double tap presupposes a touch screen ... most tablets and many ereaders do not have this and its a PITA to zoom and scroll ... and besides which IF you are primarily focusing on digital epublishing your layout should accommodate the widest range of ereaders and devices ... going to double A4 page .pdf is antithetical to this And on local representation at events costing more .. if we are a member organisation it needn't be left to the board members to represent us at events ... I am perfectly happy to turn up and do a few hours on a stand at an event within a couple of hours drive of home to raise the RAAus flag as would many others - its very corporate centred thinking to only or immediately think that the employees and management must be the representative face of the organisation 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