New RAAus board Results

[coljones]

Obviously, competition has significant advantages for the consumer (though one would have to examine the Banking Sector to form a true picture of just how much advantage there IS to 'the consumer' when 'competition' is in fact nothing more than varnish used to blur the vision of a hegemony).In the case of RAA, you have an intensely technical regime requiring strict performance. Let's be realistic: things like the magazine, (which is frankly pitched at the level of intelligence of an in-flight brochure), and fly-ins ( which can be very, very well-managed by local Flying Clubs) do not need need a multi-$M organisation.

 

However, adherence to the applicable regulations to flying an aircraft in Australia, DOES need a high-level of technical expertise. Neither RAA nor AUF nor SAA have had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the regulations since HORSCOT - and there are very, very few people indeed in this country who have a comprehensive understanding of those regulations. There were two; one died several years ago and the other has responded to being invited to far cough by the owner of a popular Aviation web-site by doing just that.

 

So: let us fantasise for a moment, about an alternative, competitive service to RAA. The actual mechanical processing of such things as registration, is not difficult - but from where does one source the expertise to ensure that the regulatory requirements are being met? You'd need people with experience of the regs. as imposed by CASA and as implemented by RAA.

 

Now, the only people NOT already in RAA who have - ostensibly - some claim to such expertise would be those who are 'on the outer' with RAA at the moment. Not to put too fine a point upon it: Sergeant Runciman's Rejects Ragtime Band - which has briefly (and laughably) put its head above the trenches from a hangar in Bundy, only to demonstrate several times that it retains its unparalleled ability to fail to get anything done because of its ineptitude.

 

Would you place any faith in that mob, to keep you flying legally? The same crew that gave you the mega-colossal registration screw-up? The failure to organise continuation of the Insurance? Membership number falsification? A massive Financial Control FAIL? Give me a break - that would be equivalent to giving Alexander Haigh control of the re-run of the Western Front battle..

 

So far, I have seen no better alternative to RAA as it currently stands to serve my modest flying ambitions. I have an open mind to any realistic alternative, but it will have to be way more realistic and believable than the Bundy Hangar Clown's Co-Opertative.

Sorry maaate, Runciman wasn't the problem, he was a desperate attempt to be a solution. The wheels started falling off the plane when Eugene Reid was in the chair. If Reid had not been replaced by Runciman god knows where we would be except broke and out of business. How Reid got back on the board is beyond me. Democracy sucks (at times)!!!

 

 

[robinsm]

Sorry Coljones, where is your evidence. Statements like that are all very well if backed up by evidence but the rank and file never saw it and REID has been elected by those of us who bothered to vote. Democracy may suck but its the best we have at the moment.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry maaate, Runciman wasn't the problem, he was a desperate attempt to be a solution. The wheels started falling off the plane when Eugene Reid was in the chair. If Reid had not been replaced by Runciman god knows where we would be except broke and out of business. How Reid got back on the board is beyond me. Democracy sucks (at times)!!!

In recent times there has been an unfortunate focus, probably for propaganda purposes, on a very narrow segment of RAA history to paint some good guys vs some bad guys.

 

You're correct that Runciman, painted as one of the bad guys, wasn't the problem, albeit I wouldn't say he was the best communicator in the world, and I wouldn't say the executive of that time were headed in the right direction towards putting the fires out, but those fires, including what led to the Audits, were ablaze for years before Runciman and Co came on the scene.

 

You can't totally blame Eugene either; there was a situation there which had been orchestrated many years before, and you can see the fingerprints of that orchestration in the early copies of the RAA constitution.

 

If you argue he was too hands off, you have to look at what would have happened, under the structure of the day if he'd tried to be hands on.

 

If you start to go back a little bit, and most of it is on ths forum, take a look at this:

 

New RA-Aus President named!

 

The person I would like to talk to about the difficulties in managing the Association immediately before 2008 is John Gardon; from reading this he was struggling as President, and probably due to the apathy of the general members, appears to have been rounded up by others, who continued on their way in the lead up to the period which has been discussed in this thread.

 

John has made some very intelligent and meaningful posts on this forum, and it's a pity he seems to have been driven out.

 

 

[rick-p]

When Optus refuses, under the protection of ACCC, in your little corner of the world, and the monopoly provider is prevented from offering a service at a fair price what are you going to do? pat yourself on the back and say "fantastic - competition had delivered me bugger all" Competition is not the universal panacea, markets are not perfect and occasional, where orderly markets are thin and the players are disproportionate then a managed monopoly may be the only solution. We live in a society, markets should aid society not destroy it.

That's your view and your entitled to it. Having said that one has to say that it is that type of negativity that has caused the problem that we now suffer from in this country, namely that only a few are prepared to have a go and when they do try to improve a situation they are usually howled down. We will just have to wait and see what the outcome is in due course, won't we.

 

 

[rick-p]

My motto is and has always been in life don't knock those that are prepared to have a go. Don't insult peoples intelligence by making observations that are ill founded, based on nothing more than rumour and innuendo. AND never knock your competition because if you are preoccupied with their errors that's time lost in improving your own product. Your competition is something that you can't do without as it is the measure of your performance in business.

 

 

[Admin]

Like everything, it is the way it is set up, the attitudes of the encumbents and the opinions of a majority.

 

However we often see and hear of buzzwords like KPI and benchmarking etc that like the above, if not used properly in the strategic view, they are just used to achieve conformity to our competitors. This opens the door to the illegal activities of price fixing and the likes at the cost of innovation.

 

 

[rick-p]

Obviously, competition has significant advantages for the consumer (though one would have to examine the Banking Sector to form a true picture of just how much advantage there IS to 'the consumer' when 'competition' is in fact nothing more than varnish used to blur the vision of a hegemony).In the case of RAA, you have an intensely technical regime requiring strict performance. Let's be realistic: things like the magazine, (which is frankly pitched at the level of intelligence of an in-flight brochure), and fly-ins ( which can be very, very well-managed by local Flying Clubs) do not need need a multi-$M organisation.

 

However, adherence to the applicable regulations to flying an aircraft in Australia, DOES need a high-level of technical expertise. Neither RAA nor AUF nor SAA have had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the regulations since HORSCOT - and there are very, very few people indeed in this country who have a comprehensive understanding of those regulations. There were two; one died several years ago and the other has responded to being invited to far cough by the owner of a popular Aviation web-site by doing just that.

 

So: let us fantasise for a moment, about an alternative, competitive service to RAA. The actual mechanical processing of such things as registration, is not difficult - but from where does one source the expertise to ensure that the regulatory requirements are being met? You'd need people with experience of the regs. as imposed by CASA and as implemented by RAA.

 

Now, the only people NOT already in RAA who have - ostensibly - some claim to such expertise would be those who are 'on the outer' with RAA at the moment. Not to put too fine a point upon it: Sergeant Runciman's Rejects Ragtime Band - which has briefly (and laughably) put its head above the trenches from a hangar in Bundy, only to demonstrate several times that it retains its unparalleled ability to fail to get anything done because of its ineptitude.

 

Would you place any faith in that mob, to keep you flying legally? The same crew that gave you the mega-colossal registration screw-up? The failure to organise continuation of the Insurance? Membership number falsification? A massive Financial Control FAIL? Give me a break - that would be equivalent to giving Alexander Haigh control of the re-run of the Western Front battle..

 

So far, I have seen no better alternative to RAA as it currently stands to serve my modest flying ambitions. I have an open mind to any realistic alternative, but it will have to be way more realistic and believable than the Bundy Hangar Clown's Co-Opertative.

<Post edited - Mod>

 

This is the problem of having an organization with a membership and no competition, a lot think that they can do better but most only want to pursue their love of aviation so why have a club then, make it a business and the consumer buys the product if they like it and if not then they don't?

 

 

[Keith Page]

It is lazy marketing to degrade the opposition, the situation is much better if one gets out and markets more efficiently. It is a waste of time and effort to sit and bag the opposition, that time is better spent moving ahead.

 

So if someone gets off their but and does something better they need respect and curtesy for having the foresight.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

Like everything, it is the way it is set up, the attitudes of the encumbents and the opinions of a majority.However we often see and hear of buzzwords like KPI and benchmarking etc that like the above, if not used properly in the strategic view, they are just used to achieve conformity to our competitors. This opens the door to the illegal activities of price fixing and the likes at the cost of innovation.

Oh! Admin. That needs a second read to grasp the true meaning of that post. Well said, I like it.

KP

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't know what the problem is with the new board. It seems that a large number of people want to knock it, but what have they done to deserve all the knockers.

 

I did vote for Eugene because he appeared to be better than some of the others. He was in my opinion not very effective in his past role in RAAus, but we do know his track record and I feel that he will be a good board member, because he has experience and loves flying. A vote for him did not elevate him to a position where he controlled the whole board.

 

Lets give them a chance to impress us with their ability, before we try to cut them down.

 

 

[coljones]

That's your view and your entitled to it. Having said that one has to say that it is that type of negativity that has caused the problem that we now suffer from in this country, namely that only a few are prepared to have a go and when they do try to improve a situation they are usually howled down. We will just have to wait and see what the outcome is in due course, won't we.

Not at all. Alongside the competitive model, monopolies and the public service are capable of delivering great results. If your mind goes back that far you might remember the shambles that the NSW power supply was in before the then NSW government gathered the disparate parts of the electricity industry together to forge the Electricity Commission to deliver reliable electricity across NSW.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Thanks to all board members, elected and not elected for having a go...

 

I'm certainly not going to be pre-judging them

 

Give them some clear air and see how they pan out

 

 

[frank marriott]

The reality of the NEW board is:

 

6 less members representatives

 

1 new board member

 

The only real difference is 4 can run with whatever direction they choose with only 3 to give opposing views.

 

I accept some like this idea (personally I think it is dangerous) but that was what 800 voted for so we can only wait and see who is correct. - like it or not that was the change supported by the majority who voted.

 

Aviation knowledge and experience was activally opposed in the lead up to the general meeting and obviously

 

gained a fair amount of support for whatever reason.

 

 

[Oscar]

Frank: how do you support your contentions?

 

Unless I have read the voting incorrectly, Trevor Bange received the second highest number of votes. Trevor has been a hugely active contributor to recreational aviation in its various forms for almost 50 years; has been an Instructor and RTOA for the GFA, is a CFI, Instructor, L2 and L3, provides and maintains the airfield for the largest Recreational flying club in Australia on his own property. His entire family has/does support recreational aviation to a degree that I ask you to provide a better example.

 

Give us all a better example of someone dedicated to furthering Recreational aviation.

 

 

[frank marriott]

No comment on any individual. - Trevor in not a new member just re-elected. I.e. Nothing new with him.

 

 

[David Isaac]

The reality of the NEW board is:6 less members representatives

 

1 new board member

 

The only real difference is 4 can run with whatever direction they choose with only 3 to give opposing views.

 

I accept some like this idea (personally I think it is dangerous) but that was what 800 voted for so we can only wait and see who is correct. - like it or not that was the change supported by the majority who voted.

 

Aviation knowledge and experience was activally opposed in the lead up to the general meeting and obviously

 

gained a fair amount of support for whatever reason.

Frank,

I'm not sure what you are driving at. Having less or more board members provides the same ratio effect.

 

It can always be one more board member than 50% that will determine any resolution. That does NOT mean that will be the case in all or many resolutions. In voting that is that close it will no doubt involve some debate and the debate could swing the decision either way.

 

Seven actively involved board members is better for the membership. Compare this with many more board members where invariably some will sit on the fence and NOT contribute and that would be a poorer outcome for members.

 

 

[robinsm]

It appears that apathy is still alive and well in the organisation. If you voted then complain all you like but if you didn't vote then accept it because you abrogated your right to do so by your apathy.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Frank,I'm not sure what you are driving at. Having less or more board members provides the same ratio effect.

It can always be one more board member than 50% that will determine any resolution. That does NOT mean that will be the case in all or many resolutions. In voting that is that close it will no doubt involve some debate and the debate could swing the decision either way.

 

Seven actively involved board members is better for the membership. Compare this with many more board members where invariably some will sit on the fence and NOT contribute and that would be a poorer outcome for members.

If that's what you believe David, no worries, I wouldn't attempt to change your's or anyone else's opinion.

 

It is accepted practice to get various views, consider them, and make the best decision. Robust debate provides the best results - this is what's happening and you should agree doesn't go down with me.

 

Opinions by individuals who believe they have absolute knowledge and resort to insulting language (internal matters) does not produce the best results for the organisation (I have copies from my short term).

 

I have NO problems with the members vote and the outcome, I just have serious worries with the current approach - I honestly hope the faithful believers are correct, I just don't agree.

 

Anyway enough from me I will just go back to flying aeroplanes and observe what the current approach delivers (I do regret registering LSA now, but we all live and learn).

 

 

[David Isaac]

I certainly respect your opinion Frank and am disappointed you have witnessed vitriol in your short time on the Board.

 

The deceptive belief of 'absolute knowledge' is certainly dangerous, it has in history lead to 'absolute power' ...

 

 

[billwoodmason]

The disappointing thing about the recent board elections for me was the fact that only one aspirant actually published what he stood for. The criteria that aspirants published in the Magazine gave only their experience in relation to said criteria and did nothing to help voters understand whether particular nominees held views which voters approved of. I am eternally grateful that the Tony King cartel did not get all its members up and hope that provides scope for proper debate on all matters. I do see however that with a reduced board it will be easier to get all thinking in unison - perhaps to our detriment.

 

I am troubled however, by the haste at which the Pres and CEO are embarking on their campaign of change to all manner of aspects of RAA - all without any meaningful consultation with the membership. We are being dictated to pure and simple!!. The plan is too have that many things going on at once that resistance to all is not possible. We are going to end up with an organisation which we will not be able to recognise as our association - perhaps that ship has already sailed, we are fast becoming another just another derivative of CASA - shame on you Linke and Monch you are going to destroy what was such a good thing. They are in bed with CASA and are selling us out - too bad if you don't like it because it's just going to happen.

 

Gone are the days of going to flyins to support a growing good thing because going now means you support their actions - and be overseen by CASA as was alluded for the Ozkosh event. Why would we openly support these people whose mere presence will spoil everyone's weekend.

 

Why did RAA involve itself with the Jabiru issue which just ended in misery for every Jabiru engine/plane owner. Proper investigation of the issue would have revealed that solutions had been found and actioned but no - CASA became involved and look what happened. They manage to screw every thing they touch.

 

And now CASA wants RAA to look after all aircraft up to 1500 kg and Linke and Monch oblige and say look what we are doing for members - what they are doing is going to change the entire reason for RAAs existence and cost us money in the process. Under these two the cost of Recreational aviation cannot help but rise as long as they pursue their current course. We are screwed as long as these two are at the helm. Linke is looking to build his resume' and will leave and go on to his next conquest and RAA will be left to suffer the consequences.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

billwoodmason, nice summary.

 

Of course RAAus and GFA etc are simply divisions of CASA. CASA bought them for peanuts. Self administration is simply an illusion fostered by CASA to avoid taking responsibility if questions are asked in Parliament. If the political heat gets too great (say a glider or RAAus aircraft collides with a regional airliner on approach or departure from a country airport with tens of dead), CASA will simply shut down the organisation concerned and possibly all the others just to demonstrate that action has been taken. That of course means collective punishment for the members, something we shouldn't be doing in Australia to Australian citizens.

 

The answer is pretty simple and cuts through the shambles that is any kind of recreational aviation administration in Australia.

 

1. Register all RAAus aircraft as Australian aircraft. Gliders already are VH registered Australian aircraft.

 

2. Add to the CARs/CASRs, CAOs/CASOs words to the effect that aircraft under 600Kg (or whatever arbitrary weight limit above that you like) and gliders may be flown by pilots holding a RPL and the medical for that RPL is the medical standard for an ordinary Australian State Driver's Licence. In the transition just keep flying until your next AFR when the RPL will be issued. Alternatively just have the RPL issued if you have the certificate or a requisite numbers of hours and logbook endorsements.

 

3. Do the same for maintenance by allowing owner maintenance of aircraft and gliders under the weight limit. Gliders can be up to 850 Kg so that at least would be consistent although I don't think there is any reason not to set the limit higher.

 

4. All these aircraft are then operated day VFR under same rules that any VH registered aircraft operates under. We all DO fly in the same airspace after all.

 

As these would be CASA regs there would be no need to force membership on anyone (avoids infringing their right to free association which includes not associating with people whose business methods, ethics and honesty you find abhorrent and whose reputation you don't want yours tainted by. Unfortunately you are judged to some extent by the company you keep) and also avoids the compulsory unionism aspect where people working in the industry MUST join the organisation.

 

The organisations then can be honest brokers acting for the members (those who may freely choose to join) and acting as a political lobby on the members' behalf as well as promoting the activity and educating as to how to do it better and more safely. See Experimental Aircraft Association in the USA (EAA). Most successful organisation in sport and recreational aviation in the world and they have ZERO actual power.

 

The organisations, to retain members, will have to perform like any other private bodies with something to sell and demonstrate value to customers in order to stay in business. Under current arrangements RAAus and GFA aren't private bodies anymore. Coles, Woolies, Mobil etc do not have the right to force you to buy their products and neither should RAAus and GFA.

 

 

[gandalph]

Of course RAAus and GFA etc are simply divisions of CASA. CASA bought them for peanuts. Self administration is simply an illusion fostered by CASA to avoid taking responsibility if questions are asked in Parliament. If the political heat gets too great (say a glider or RAAus aircraft collides with a regional airliner on approach or departure from a country airport with tens of dead), CASA will simply shut down the organisation concerned and possibly all the others just to demonstrate that action has been taken. That of course means collective punishment for the members, something we shouldn't be doing in Australia to Australian citizens.

Mike,

 

You are probably correct but you've also summed up very neatly why CASA is unlikely to ever agree to the changes you've outlined.

 

he organisations then can be honest brokers acting for the members (those who may freely choose to join) and acting as a political lobby on the members' behalf as well as promoting the activity and educating as to how to do it better and more safely. See Experimental Aircraft Association in the USA (EAA). Most successful organisation in sport and recreational aviation in the world and they have ZERO actual power.The organisations, to retain members, will have to perform like any other private bodies with something to sell and demonstrate value to customers in order to stay in business.

Spot on!

 

 

[Keith Page]

No comment on any individual. - Trevor in not a new member just re-elected. I.e. Nothing new with him.

What Frank is saying it is a case of the same old stuff.

When were told we needed all these new board people with extra special skills, look what the members did, put the old ones back in. Well where is the truth nothing has happened as we were told what was going to happen, a dodgey constitution, opps manual and tech manual.

 

What a show.

 

KP

 

 

[Oscar]

A dodgey Constitution?

 

Do you happen to know who drafted the new RAA Constitution? I do, and I'll back his expertise against the Rocky Horror Show mob every time.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Oscar... I know too, so you are not on your own with bit of knowledge.

 

KP