pmccarthy

A bridge near my house has the slogan Menzies out now! painted on it. Its been there a while. Has he really gone?

This is the nub of a problem. I now fly RA to go interesting places, not to mess with aeroplanes. GA? Been there, done that. AUF and Drifters, been there and done that. We really do have two diametrically opposed views within the organisation, probably reflected by the 50-50 vote and the split board. Both views of the hobby are valid. Can one set of rules and procedures satisfy both groups?

For my annual with my LAME we pull off all removable panels, use a bore scope to look into inaccessible places and check what seems to me to be everything. Check the pull on the sprag, blade angles bolt torques etc. all of this is specified in the maintenance manual and the Rotax manual. It cost me less than $1000 every 100 hours or annually. I think it is good value and a lot less than I would have paid to maintain a GA aircraft. I don't know what you mean by an L2 airworthiness inspection but it is hard to imagine it could be more thorough than this. I don't have a problem with anyone doing it themselves if they are competent, it would take about 10 hours I guess, but does anyone seriously suggest it is unnecessary? Flying is an expensive hobby, like sailing, like car racing. Perhaps there are people who shouldn't be flying if they can't make this commitment. Maybe rag and tube is cheaper to maintain, I have no experience of it. But GA is certainly a lot more expensive.

Thanks DI. The poor board communication leads people to contact their rep or someone they know and get a partial story or a biased story. In a public company selective briefing of shareholders is highly illegal for obvious reasons. I think it is most undesirable here too. Any information about "board" matters should come out regularly and officially. What happens in their meetings, who voted for or said what, must remain confidential otherwise members will be afraid to vote or speak for the common good. I think the "leaky board" is at the root of our problems. And I use the word board deliberately - whatever the structure and constitution might be, good governance demands that our elected representatives behave as a board. What happens within a board meeting is confidential, the outcomes are not.

So that's a reason to sit back and let others control your life pm?I'd say probably 9,980 have thought the way you did, while all the time the lines were open to get facts rather than disinformation.

How can 10,000 members talk to anyone directly?

I have heard over time many aircraft being described as "landing them selves". They are usually low wing types with pronounced ground effect. The first I encountered was the Piper PA 28 Cherokee when it was released in

All good stuff. Meetings might be reported rather than distributing minutes, as the minutes will contain confidential material. Otherwise this is all heading in a good direction.

Plus 40 years of flying and riding. My classic bike club has a surprising number of aviators.

I have asked five members about the situation in the last week or so. None of them is aware of any of it, none reads this forum, they just fly. They don't know there is an election coming up. I would say there are 9,500 or so similar members. If it isn't in Sport Pilot they will not be aware of it. That is not a criticism of them. When you join an organisation you assume and expect that it just hums along in the background supporting its members.

Dafydd all good points and they relate to how things should be organised and run. The governance problem is quite distinct, it is about having properly experienced directors who understand their responsibilities and have the time available to carry them out. I have posted elsewhere about good governance, meeting frequency and so on, but these observations seem to sink like a stone. They are not my opinion, there is a wealth of information available on board governance and there are good examples to follow. The people who post here with contrary views are simply out of their depth.

I said nothing about compulsion, I said "need" and what happens if we don't. And for it to happen, a couple of " musts".

The "new" board will need to develop a strategic plan covering the next 12 months. This will need to be done as a face to face exercise, typically it will take two days for a "new" board with operational issues to consider. All board membuers must be prepared to commit this time as soon as possible after the AGM and the membership must be prepared to support the cost of travel and accommodation for this to occur. If we don't get board buy-in through such a process then the old woes will continue.

Time to stop looking backward and to start thinking about the practicalities of reform.

Where can I read a copy of the Directors and Officers insurance policy that will apply to incoming board members?

From long experience, this board will have to meet monthly for at least 12 months and probably two years to resolve the current issues. Then maybe bi-monthly. Face to face meetings are essential, at least half the meetings must be face to face. Potential directors must be willing to meet that schedule.

My recollection from 43 years ago (supported by my log book) is that GA training included spin recovery ( after three rotations), one hour under the hood, recovery from unusual attitudes ( handover in the middle of an aerobatic routine, both visual and under the hood) and (optionally) aerobatic training. I haven't mentioned the things that I think are still done, like forced landings. Total may have been only a few hours but what a difference it makes to confidence and ability to react to surprises.

PG there are still influential posters on this forum arguing that we should keep it simple (like it once was), that CASA are the enemy/ problem and that the members should all be involved in every decision. To move forward and establish good governance we have to somehow prevail over these people. I don't know how many there are in the broader membership but they have to be outvoted on the subject of restructuring, so that a new board, chairman and CEO can get on with rebuilding. In my experience this can only happen if you have a current chairman (president?) who throws his efforts into making this happen. In other words, change needs a champion and will not happen of itself democratically.

I once completed a circuit in ground effect in a Piper Arrow 180 with the automatic gear feature. High density altitude and load and every time gear up was selected it would come up half way, spoil the lift, then go down again automatically. We were just clearing fences, fortunately in open desert country. Wasn't game to experiment with changing the first notch flap setting at the time.

PG with the structure that you suggest you can still have regional representatives who communicate regional issues to the CEO and organise regional meetings for training etc. Once a year the regional reps can meet with the senior staff and directors for a strategic planning weekend, to set the course for the following year. This frees the directors from regional bias so they can focus on good governance.

I think we are on he same page PG, a part time Company Secretary would be sufficient. But we should not allow any voluntary positions, peanuts and monkeys. To run properly we are probably several positions short. Call it five staff at $70,000 each (Canberra). That's an increase of $35 in annual fees per member. Who would object to that if it resolved the woes complained about on his forum?

It is likely that 99.5% of the members are largely unaware of the RAAus issues, or try not to think about them. I have been a member of AUF/RAAus since the early nineties, but I don't know any of the posters on this site. I just enjoy flying. There are obviously wheels within wheels, personality clashes and a lot of history between individuals. I have been following this Governing Bodies tab because the issues may impact on me and on my flying friends, but I find it impossible to sort fact from fiction. Because i don't know the posters i can't judge their credibility, but an opinion of each is forming in my mind. The members who don't follow this site must be blissfully in the dark, because we get no meaningful news on these matters directly from RAAus. A suspicion is growing that many posts are just BS and I should just trust the board and react only to official notices. But what if I'm wrong, and the Board and management are truly dysfunctional? It would be great to get some official reassurance (or mea culpa) from the organisation.

I don't agree that the elected positions of secretary and treasurer should exist. The company secretary should be appointed by the board, the accountant or financial controller also. We just elect directors. I think I am agreeing with you Alfa.

The constitutional review can set the number of directors, length of a director's term and how many consecutive terms can be served. Guidelines on the attributes sought in directors can be published. Thereafter it will be up to the members to elect the best candidates and not their mates. We will be in the hands of the membership. Directors will elect a chairman. Then, if a good group of directors has been elected, all of the other problems that we have been worried about will be resolved in a reasonable period. Directors wil set direction and ensure that a competent management team carries it through.

As to the attributes of directors, senior management, CEO or board experience is highly desirable, together with some knowledge of aviation. While a mix of accounting, legal and technical backgrounds would be good, it will be hard to achieve through democratic elections.

How quickly and through what processes can we make this happen?

The minutes and accounts that came with the magazine this week were amateurish. My local motorcycle club does better. It seems crazy that we need to forensically examine the accounts, but I can see why the need has arisen. We urgently need to get a competent board in place so hat we can have confidence in what is reported. Thanks for filling the gap meanwhile.

Alfa I agree with all that you say. We need a smaller board, elected for ability and not regionally, an experienced chairman, and an executive team reporting to the board. I favour requiring board members to join AICD and therefore they would have to participate in the continuing professional development programme.

I am a member of a comparable organisation with 12,000 members that requires around 20 staff to deliver the services required. I suspect that RAAus has been seriously understaffed from the outset. That other organisation had many of the problems that we are experiencing until it dropped the regional representation model about 15 years ago and replaced its governance model with a board of directors.