Why I will be voting AGAINST the new constitution

[turboplanner]

OK sorry, my fault, was just skimming; I'm working on a project.

 

 

[gandalph]

Careful there Turbs, mean minded folk could think you were being mischievous rather than just distracted.

 

 

[facthunter]

Good thing we don't have them here, then. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

PROXIES

 

I will be attending the AGM. If anyone wants to load me up with proxies I'm happy to oblige.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Careful there Turbs, mean minded folk could think you were being mischievous rather than just distracted.

Troublemakers might, of course, but there was no intent to me mischievous.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Freudian slip there Tubs " but there was no intent to me mischievous."

 

That's almost as good as Keith cancelling Ego's

 

and you really should have had a full stop after the "to" and capitalised the "me" and perhaps an exclamation mark at the end

 

 

[nong]

OK - I am stopping all posts on this website until further notice.Today - after a 16 month battle with RAAus tech on the registration markings display on my 95.10 trike - RAAus president writes to me cancelling my aircrafts registration and saying it has to be re-registered under 95.32 because I was wrong on the Tech Manual requirements because apparently RAAus has no power to register 95.10 trikes ... despite having registered trikes under 95.10 since 1988!!

 

This feels like a complete piss take and close to persecution - where the f&&& to they get off redefining the RAAus power to register to cancel my aircraft reg - and they do not even provide any LEGAL ADVICE setting out why they come to this conclusion.

 

So until tomorrow when I can find out what the hell they are up to I am signing off because I FEEL that my posts on here are influencing operations of RAAus to me as a member.

Gee Kasper, that's rough. Maladministration, in my opinion.

Assuming your trike is, as you say, a 95.10 trike, RAAus MUST register it. CAO 95.10 Instrument 2014 provides for your trike to be registered.

 

It's a lonely feeling, eh, when you are fighting a one man battle against CASA or RAAus. Believe me, I know.

 

If your aircraft complies with the simple requirements of 95.10, I think you have the makings of a winning hand. However....you must play with skill, cunning and targeted aggression.

 

Oh, and yes. There is one paid employee of RAAus who is way overdue to be taken down. But, of course, you already know that.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[Spriteah]

OK sorry, my fault, was just skimming; I'm working on a project.

Just trying to cause trouble.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just trying to cause trouble.

If I had been, the facts were very quickly corrected by SQDI, and the document itself can easily be checked.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Gee Kasper, that's rough. Maladministration, in my opinion.Assuming your trike is, as you say, a 95.10 trike, RAAus MUST register it. CAO 95.10 Instrument 2014 provides for your trike to be registered.

It's a lonely feeling, eh, when you are fighting a one man battle against CASA or RAAus. Believe me, I know.

 

If your aircraft complies with the simple requirements of 95.10, I think you have the makings of a winning hand. However....you must play with skill, cunning and targeted aggression.

 

Oh, and yes. There is one paid employee of RAAus who is way overdue to be taken down. But, of course, you already know that.

 

Cheers.

We only see one side of this matter on here so be very careful of making judgements about a real person who, in my judgement is doing an outstanding job and, afaik, has the full support of a 13 member Board. He is by a nautical mile ( or two the ) the best qualified Tech Manager RAAus has ever had.

 

 

[facthunter]

Tech managers are threatened species in the RAAus. They have the most critical job in the structure. If we keep turning them over as we have in the past some of the blame must be with us for picking them wrongly, or expecting the impossible, not supporting them enough etc etc. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

This one is definitely a keeper. The real benefits of more than two years of swimming against the tide (CASA/SASAO) should materialise over the next 6 to 12 months. I think even the most mindless critics will be gob smacked about how much has been achieved.

 

 

[facthunter]

Will the members have more or LESS power to influence the direction of the organisation Don? There's not a lot of PILOT knowledge there, currently and becoming less as a % of what is the total mindset at management level. Some are effective and doing a good job . The idea of having board people with high skills in accountancy, law etc fails the effectiveness test as when you really need advice it has to be the BEST current state of the Art info I believe, so you source it as necessary from outside, in most cases. You don't get your mate to do brain surgery on you , even if he was a doctor once.

 

Policy should be determined by members, changing as times change . You have to have a way of collecting and processing the information.. It's a never ending process. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

This one is definitely a keeper. The real benefits of more than two years of swimming against the tide (CASA/SASAO) should materialise over the next 6 to 12 months. I think even the most mindless critics will be gob smacked about how much has been achieved.

but Don ... is he a tech manager that truly believes in the concept of experimental with absolute freedom? Are our current board? most importantly does the current executive because they will be running the show for quite a while if the constitution gets up?

I ask this as I directly asked the CEO on friday if the changes in tech manual the mag sets out that entrench different maintenance and mod processes for second and subsequent owners of 19 reg were demanded by CASA or came from the board and Michael said it was not from CASA but the board ... so the board decided the effective value of the aircraft should take a hit and cost of ownship should go up.

 

oh and what safety issue is moving from 1 inspection to 4 addressing?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Kasper, do you have that in writing? I ask in that if you do I would appreciate a copy via PM so I can sharpen my chest poking finger and set off on a mission...... as allude to previously I want to ensure that if we must be burdened with this (and that's no given) that those things that have already occurred in the past by 2nd and subsequent owners are not suddenly retrospectively illegal....which would clearly be a very real and ugly mess for, I'm guessing, a significant chunk of the 19 fleet owners could be impacted.

 

Furthermore if they (any changes made by 2nd and subsequent owners prior to the changes in permissibility) are protected then how does one establish a baseline of what's been done prior to the change and where and who stores that...... I can foresee maintenance manuals being selectively rewritten to establish earlier timeframes.......

 

Andy

 

 

[kasper]

It was the ONLY question I asked at the RAAus meeting ... given the answer and the problems of my aircraft I made it perfectly clear that that I did not want to discuss anything with either Michael or Jarad ... it was not from them but the board per Michael.

 

And for those who were there when I lost my cool please understand that EVERY time I have had a 'discussion' with ANYONE from tech or the CEO on my aircraft over the past 19 months it has resulting in nothing but delay and frustration ... and the kicker of Micahel cancelling my registration by email less than 4 weeks after getting it in the post is the reason I could absolutely NOT discuss anything with him.

 

He clarified the source of the changes was NOT CASA direction to RAAus but from the Board ... as soon as that was confirmed I had nothing further to discuss with them - my beef is absolutely with the board.

 

And FYI the airframe I am getting registered was designed and built by me and FLOWN on the UK register for three years before being removed from the register when I moved back to OZ ... and I deliberately decided to go with 95.10 and not 95.32 because I feared that RAAus appeared to be going back towards GA on maintenance and mod of these reg with ever increasing paperwork for no apparent reason other than bureaucracy - they appear to be leaving 95.10 alone because it appears dead

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Will the members have more or LESS power to influence the direction of the organisation Don?

Personally, I hope that we can increase the influence that members have and tap into the capability store that is our 10,000 members. Once we have a solid base under us that will be provided by the new Constitution, the ground-up rewrite of the Tech Manual as V4.0 and an update of the Ops Manual and the redevelopment of the Information Systems and introduction of a new SMS, RAus should be in a position to substantially increase member participation. The workload on everything that has been necessary to get us up to ground level has been urgent and truly exceptional in volume and complexity. To get it all done expeditiously, making up for decades of neglect, it has been necessary for the broad brush strokes and legal finer points to be a "given". Consultation has still been extensive and mostly aimed at putting members in a position where they understand the reforms and can make an informed choice. All RAAus members have had the opportunity at the last AGM and in print since Oct 2015 to to ask questions and request changes. From here on, we should be seen to be an organisation that on significant matters has a practical process for consulting members and incorporating good feedback into the solution.

I've always like the concept, if not always the execution, of CASA's NPRMs. It is possible we could move in that direction but that will be for the Board and the Members to decide in future as it could be very resource hungry process. RAAus just doesn't have, and never will have, the CASA sized bureaucracy that such a process might require. But, if members want it, and want to pay for it in their annual fees and ask for it, it must happen. Always hard to see the silent, largely disinterested, vast majority of members being prepared to pay one cent more in members fees.

 

There's not a lot of PILOT knowledge there, currently and becoming less as a % of what is the total mindset at management level. Some are effective and doing a good job . The idea of having board people with high skills in accountancy, law etc fails the effectiveness test as when you really need advice it has to be the BEST current state of the Art info I believe, so you source it as necessary from outside, in most cases . . . Policy should be determined by members, changing as times change . You have to have a way of collecting and processing the information. It's a never ending process. Nev

Agree with all that Nev. One day you are going to stun me by saying something I can disagree with.

 

Currently we have a deep pool of experienced aviators/maintainers with Trevor Bange, Ed Smith, Eugene Reid, Mike Apps and Rod Birrell. As to who the extra 4 on the new Board will be is of course up to the Members. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that whatever other skills they may bring, all candidates will always firstly be ordinary RAAus pilots and maintainers.

 

The initial Director's job will be to make sure all the members have the info they should have to make an informed choice as to what the Board needs. Some may favour engineering, some commercial, some aviation operations. One reason for starting with an initial build up to 5 is to see what the election throws up. If we ended up heavy on management people and light on aviation ops and engineering people then the members would be given that analysis to do with what they choose. If the director who has extensive finance experience retires, then members should know that and then can weight their voting as they see fit.

 

In the end, we need people on the Board who are there not for any concept of prestige or personal advantage but to contribute enthusiastically to guiding RAAus into the future. I prefer that they have broad-based experience. You are absolutely right Nev, if you need specialist assistance you hire it in don't depend on a Board Member.

 

Don

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I ask this as I directly asked the CEO on friday if the changes in tech manual the mag sets out that entrench different maintenance and mod processes for second and subsequent owners of 19 reg were demanded by CASA or came from the board and Michael said it was not from CASA but the board ... so the board decided the effective value of the aircraft should take a hit and cost of ownship should go up.

wow, unbelievable