fly_tornado Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 So Don, good to see you back from detention, my RAA dream team now is Chairman of the Board: Eugene Board: fantastic five 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I'm going to vote for Rod Birrell because he contributes here. I would vote for Pauline Hanson too because she flies in a Jabiru.And I want to know the positions of the other candidates on (1) owner maintenance and (2) fighting for safer airspace. Rod has only been here since the beginning of August (unless he had a previous life). While his presence here would be welcome, that alone should not be the sole determinant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Silence is golden Col, silence is golden. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01rmb Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 To get my thinking up to speed, Which domain does he own?Thank you for that. Something we must know. KP Andrew Schox, one of the board nominees of the five is the registered owner of the 'The Five for the Future' web site - Five for the future 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Oscar I am at wits end to arrive at a reason for your interest in RAAus when you are not a member. If you have a vested interest I can under stand. The drum beating for the ideological direction for RAAus has me wondering???Regards, KP Keith - absolutely I have a vested interest!. When I have completed the rebuild on my aircraft I will be returning to RAA, and I certainly don't want to return to the sort of mess it was in when I left!. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Col, neither his presence here (Rod) or his absence should be a major determinant. He is an ex president in the chaos time,when it wasn't fashionable with a LONG term presence in the movement as an ACTIVE participant and basic plane flyer and he's here now, after being called a liar about 4 times on this forum by someone high up in the new management who should know better than indulge in that manner of behaviour . Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Col, neither his presence here (Rod) or his absence should be a major determinant. He is an ex president in the chaos time,when it wasn't fashionable with a LONG term presence in the movement as an ACTIVE participant and basic plane flyer and he's here now, after being called a liar about 4 times on this forum by someone high up in the new management who should know better than indulge in that manner of behaviour . Nev I agree with you facthunter, Rod made those comments on good grounds with his personal knowledge and good information so how can they be called lies. We have to think through the lie point, as there is some untruths being campaigned, the different truths are in conflict so one must be correct. Some one has the incorrect information for this to get so ugly. We may need a senate inquired chaired by Barry OSullivan. KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Andrew Schox, one of the board nominees of the five is the registered owner of the 'The Five for the Future' web site - Five for the future Thank you for that. KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I agree with you facthunter, Rod made those comments on good grounds with his personal knowledge and good information so how can they be called lies. We have to think through the lie point, as there is some untruths being campaigned, the different truths are in conflict so one must be correct. Some one has the incorrect information for this to get so ugly. We may need a senate inquired chaired by Barry OSullivan.KP With due respect to all points of view - the veiled comments here relate to the contention between Don Ramsay and Rod Birrell. I have no position on, nor knowledge of, the veracity of the statements of either party - but it is in NO way a proven case that one or the other has produced the truth. The assertion that ' Rod made those comments on good grounds with his personal knowledge and good information so how can they be called lies' has - in reality - no greater validity than the opposite view. What is needed, is independent verification of statements, supported by incontrovertible evidence - for both protagonists. Any assumption that the statements of one vs. the other, in the absence of such evidence, has more veracity is entirely subjective. Personally, I do not have the background knowledge to assess the claims of either Rod or Don. I have seen nothing on here that makes me assured that either of them is 'right'. Unsupported assertions of opinion do not make one case or the other as 'right'. I have - as any person has - my 'feelings' as to what is 'right' - but that is IN NO WAY proof. Until I see irrefutable proof, I withhold judgement. KP, you have been promising us a grand denoument for some months now - but that continues to remain a promise rather than a fact. KP, find the time to present your facts. I am quite prepared to listen and if appropriate, debate them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I see some good contenders in FT's so called "gang of 5" although not all of them. Perhaps 3.....and would'nt want all of them in for fear of a clique anyway. Eugene and Rod have had their day in the sun (well....more overcast really..) so the list is narrowing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 "With due respect to all points of view - the veiled comments here relate to the contention between Don Ramsay and Rod Birrell. I have no position on, nor knowledge of, the veracity of the statements of either party - but it is in NO way a proven case that one or the other has produced the truth. The assertion that ' Rod made those comments on good grounds with his personal knowledge and good information so how can they be called lies' has - in reality - no greater validity than the opposite view. What is needed, is independent verification of statements, supported by incontrovertible evidence - for both protagonists. Any assumption that the statements of one vs. the other, in the absence of such evidence, has more veracity is entirely subjective. Personally, I do not have the background knowledge to assess the claims of either Rod or Don. I have seen nothing on here that makes me assured that either of them is 'right'. Unsupported assertions of opinion do not make one case or the other as 'right'. I have - as any person has - my 'feelings' as to what is 'right' - but that is IN NO WAY proof. Until I see irrefutable proof, I withhold judgement. KP, you have been promising us a grand denoument for some months now - but that continues to remain a promise rather than a fact." And, therein lies the main problem nowadays - doesn't seem to matter anymore who is making assertions because in any discussion/argument in all walks of life, WHO do you believe. From my observation a lot of people tend to believe their 'friends' comments despite not knowing the actual truth (we seem to want to believe the worst of people) so nothing changes. Life used to be much simpler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 One for you Oscar, I will not write what I know I have given it some thought, that is a given. However as I did mention Barry OSullivan will be a good one to ask to sit and adjudicate. KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Why has Rod been the only one on the forum? Why would the candidates bother? The candidates know they will get elected on 120-150 votes, the most successful candidate that will get elected only because they are known. Are you expecting the new structure to somehow change the trajectory of the RAA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I have only just looked at this part of the forum and find it saddening. How are we ever goung to get good management when there is so much innuendo and sabre rattling about the candidates for this election. I have had a brief look at all the candidates statements and they all look acceptable. But they all miss the point about what they will be required to do. I believe their job will be to oversee the running of RAAus and make policies for the future.One of the biggest jobs will be promoting RAAus and getting a good working relationship with CASA. The daily working of RAAus should be under the supervision of the CEO, not the board. Most of the candidates seem to push their credentials in risk management, stressing their risk management expertise in businesses which are nothing like RAAus. Others seem to be succesful directors of busineses, again nothing like RAAus. We need to sort out those who will push hardest to ensure CASA doesn't stomp on us again. In other words keep us compliant. Push for better conditions for our flying, such as higher weights, controlled airspace, aerobatics, whatever takes your fancy. Then they can push RAAus membership, lower fees etc. I think they should also look at the current constitution and make more sense of it. Finding the right people to vote for is going to be hard from the published information. Should we vote for the old guard, who allowed RAAus to decline, should we vote for new chums with strong legal backgrounds? I think firstly we need board members who are passionate about their flying and passionate about flying with as few strings attached as possible. Finally don't knock someone because they are the wrong side of eighty, or maybe twenty. I am up there in years and there are alot of younger people who I reckon I could run rings around, in the air or on the ground. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Steady on mate, none of the fab five candidates really want that much scrutiny, they just want you to trust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEM Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Today I received the August RA Aus Sport Pilot magazine in the mail. Interesting because I am a member who has no subscription for it. I presume it was sent (to all members?) because the 10 board election candidates have their candidate statements in it. PS the issue contains a special reduced cost offer for members to pick up a years subscription. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Today I received the August RA Aus Sport Pilot magazine in the mail. Interesting because I am a member who has no subscription for it. I presume it was sent (to all members?) because the 10 board election candidates have their candidate statements in it. PS the issue contains a special reduced cost offer for members to pick up a years subscription. It should also have contained a ballot paper and reply paid envelope , as indicated in their email to members of 3rd. August ......Bob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Steady on mate, none of the fab five candidates really want that much scrutiny, they just want you to trust them. Phil , you say they don't want scrutiny but have you actually attempted to directly scrutinize them? Are you saying that the only way to put oneself forward for a board position is via this particular forum? You seem to know so much about their motives that I assume you must either know these people or have contacted them. I would suggest that until we stop using statements like Meglamaniac (sic) f---wit? (as one poster did until I pointed it out and they edited it) liars, should be locked up, I know something bad but I can't say, some of these things said by anonymous posters, then I don't blame any candidate for not posting on this site. Perhaps if the standard of conversation were more intelligent, rational and polite candidates would use this site more. Phil when I search through your postings I can find nothing that contributes to the debate. Perhaps if as a concerned non member you would like to have your burning questions answered feel free to send me your questions and I will ask them and then publicly post the answers. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Look harder Octave, the fast and furious five candidates have the motivation and ability to setup a 1 page website, surely they chose not to answer any more questions because it hinders their attempt to attain a position on the board. That's not how representation works 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Look harder Octave, the fast and furious five candidates have the motivation and ability to setup a 1 page website, surely they chose not to answer any more questions because it hinders their attempt to attain a position on the board.That's not how representation works For goodness sake Phil your are assertion that they have "chosen not to answer anymore questions" requires substantiation. Can I ask you directly, have you asked a question and failed to receive an answer?????? If I ask a question are you saying that I will not receive an answer? If I do ask a question and can prove that I got an answer, will you retract your assertion? I suspect you are just trolling, perhaps fun you, but it does detract from the usefulness of this forum. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2tonne Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 It should also have contained a ballot paper and reply paid envelope , as indicated in their email to members of 3rd. August ......Bob Mine arrived with the ballot paper and reply paid envelope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Air 63 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Mine arrived with the ballot paper and reply paid envelope My mag arrive yesterday, with Ballot Paper & Reply Paid Envelope, Voted for the Candiate of my choice, posting it back today, onwards & upwards, Brent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Still haven't received my magazine and I am now travelling interstate for a week. Certainly doesn't leave much time to get the ballot paper in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsam Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I'm still overseas after Oshkosh! I have no idea how I can participate in this RA-Aus election since there is no online option. Missed the census too, but then so did most of Australia by the sounds of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Mine arrived with a ballot paper etc. The magazine had 2 great articles in it, one telling the Jabiru story properly and another questioning the nasty safety business going on these days. I'm going to take out a subscription. 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