FlyingVizsla

The "Non-Flying" used to include the Sport Pilot magazine, voting rights, communications, and now Members Portal access. The Magazine only subscription was $60 (usually taken up by libraries / Aviation bodies), which is now $110 for non members. "Non-Flying" members comprise Pilots not flying for varying reasons (eg long recovery from illness), Student Pilots who didn't complete, People who don't fly but want to support the organisation, and incorporated organisations (eg companies - a company can't hold a Pilot Certificate).

At $100pa when the digital Magazine is free to anyone, has probably made some non-flying members rethink - it only gives you voting rights and a bit of inside information.

If you want to take a break for a few years, there are several options.

• As Old Koreelah suggested, you could continue with the bare minimum / BFRs while keeping up flying membership.
   
   
  
• You could drop the flying and downgrade your membership to "non-flying" at $100pa, get emails, vote and read the digital magazine.
   
   
  
• Cancel your membership (in writing or by non-payment) then re-join and do a BFR.
   
   
  

The Ops manual sets out the requirements for the Pilot Certificate. Section 2.07 (p.50) of the Ops Manual (available through the Members Portal on the RAA site):- PERIOD OF VALIDITY - Aeroplane Groupings, Endorsements and Ratings attached to a Pilot Certificate remain valid indefinitely. However, the authority to exercise the privileges of a Pilot Certificate is subject to compliance with the requirements detailed in paragraph 3 of this Section, unless suspended, varied or cancelled by the Operations Manager, or surrendered by the holder.

Paragraph 3 is mainly:

(i) medical fitness;

(ii) valid membership of RA-Aus;

(iii) flight review currency; - the BFR

(iv) pilot recency; - for passenger carrying

At this point in time, you are able to re-join, do a BFR and continue flying. I don't see any impediment to pilot membership in the future, or any reason why RAA might rescind the indefinite validity of the Pilot Certificate.

Dropping out leaves you with no access to the Members Portal (Ops & Tech manuals etc) and no flying may mean you get rusty or find other things to do and not return.

You have to do what bests suits you and your circumstances.

OME,

Where are you finding this link to the training course? RAA has the L1 course live at Log in - RAA - Intranet but you will have to log on to the Members' Portal first or you get an error message.

The L2 course is "coming" according to the FAQs:-

What other courses does RAAus have planned?

We will be continually rolling our new education packages. Some of these include:

• Weight and balance
   
   
  
• L2 Maintenance Authority
   
   
  
• Human Factors
   
   
  
• Safety Management Systems
   
   
  

OME - it is Tech Form 016 - on the RAA website under FORMS -> Technical .. forms Level 4 Maintenance ... Application

The criteria for a L4 Amateur Built Inspector is in Section 11.6 of the Technical Manual - RAA -> members' portal

Excerpt from the Introduction:-

Members who are a CASA LAME (or equivalent acceptable to RAAus) may apply for a Level 4 Amateur Built Inspector (ABI) Authorisation. The applicant for a L4 Authorisation must hold a Level 2 Maintenance Authorisation prior to making the application, or co-incident with it. If there is a need for a L4 ABI in a particular area, but none is available, application can be made by a RAAus member who is an experienced L2. Before an application in this instance can be assessed, the applicant must show a definite need - i.e. there are no L4s within a reasonable distance. They must show full justification (including all appropriate documentation) and references from local RAAus member(s) holding a position of authority (i.e. President or CFI of a Recreational aircraft flying club) as to why they should be considered. In such a case, the applicant may be recommended by RAAus, but is approved by CASA.

Hope this helps.

Sue

What are First Class Members? VIPs? Minister for Aviation? Prime Minister? Wing Commander (with Bar - or other gong)?

Sue

Wing Commander (with penny on a string)

YYMMDD = 160829 might get confused with post number, and might need some explanation, particularly for new users and visitors. People searching for "plane crash Kambukta Vic yesterday" might get this one way down the list, unless Mr Google is now converting likely numbers to dates. The YYMMDD format is excellent for databases and files, but not that great for titles. But still a good suggestion Flying Dog.

I try to do location and date. Often times the type of aircraft, number of Pax and injuries are not known at the first report. The date and location are usually accurate. Date makes it easier to look up later when the ATSB report is released and avoids confusion with people resurrecting ancient threads.

"Cessna Down" isn't very descriptive, especially when it turns out to be a missing Jab. "Accident Kambukta West VIC 29 Aug 2016" with a link to the article or source, a precis of the event or cut & paste of the article (for those of us on SLOOOOOW internet who can't get some news sites to load, or from subscription only sites) should be enough to get the ball rolling. I use the full date because this is becoming an international site, and some users have a different date format, 2/5/16 could be 2nd May or 5 Feb.

Talking about fee increases - Motion passed May 2015 "CEO review fees annually ... CPI increases & .. costs .. with a view to fees being adjusted on 1 July each year." Another motion, same date "For the next three years commencing 1 July 2015 aircraft registration or renewal will be increased by double the CPI and rounded up the nearest 5 dollars." (page 17)

To read the RAA resolutions go to the RAA members portal, Governance, The Board, Resolutions pdf.

I would love to know who initiated the move of the "Members Market"

Should be back under control of RAAus on our own seb site.

I had another look at the RAA Resolutions (RAA members portal, Governance, The Board, Resolutions pdf), and it appears it happened at the Oct 2014 meeting where Mark Christie proposed a 6 point motion (page 12-13) regarding the Magazine (the members market was not specifically mentioned), but the CEO was authorised "to do all things necessary ... to renegotiate the contract ... in the most favourable terms to RAA and members". Not sure if this was the CEO's or the Publisher's doing (going to an external trader).

Only the resolutions are reported, not the discussion leading up to them or the outcome. A lot of the resolutions are just accepting this Report, passing next year's budget etc. What I find interesting is who voted for what (and the names who never bothered to contribute; over and over again...) Interesting to note Rod B, moved the motion to elect Directors to RAA Ltd. seconded by Eugine R.

Counting votes - here is the reply from the CEO:-

Hi and thanks for your note.

RAAus Ltd is electing directors for the first and needs to allocate incoming board members to 1, 2 and 3 year terms. Five directors will be elected during this election while two of the initial directors will remain. In the following year, those two initial directors will be the directors who have been in office the longest and will thus be due for re-election. That is, they are effectively on 1 year terms from the date the new directors take office. Thus we need to allocate 3 directors to a 3 year term and 2 directors to a 2 year term. The following method of voting addresses this.

Each member can allocate votes on their ballot paper by numbering the boxes next to each candidate. They can allocate a vote to any number of candidates from 1 to 10. No member is compelled to number all 10 candidates, they can vote for any number they wish to.

The votes will be counted in the simplest method accepted by the AEC – most votes wins. Those candidates who receive the most 1 through 5 votes win the ballot. Candidates receiving a vote of 6 or higher are taken to not have received a vote for the 5 available seats.

All votes are considered equal and terms will be allocated based on the overall number of votes received. The top three candidates will be allocated a 3 year term and the next two will be allocated a 2 year term.

In essence you get five votes, one for each of the five vacancies.

I trust this answers your question.

Thanks

Michael Linke

So there is no point in differentiating between 1 to 5, or bothering to number 6-10.

Rod B's estimate of "at cost" magazine was $45/yr = $3.75ea. 10,000 voting members (remember, they only count Pilots when RAA quotes Member numbers of 8,600), less those already subscribing (1,000?) = $3.75 x 9,000 = $33,750. Paying the Reply Paid on 1,000 returned = $1,000. All up approx $35k, off set by several new subscriptions from people who suddenly realised what they had been missing..... The alternative was print 22 pages and post to everyone $30k?.

Contingency fund disappeared in several actions against RAA for fatalities, grounding of aircraft etc, plus a number of other black holes, but also some remedial work on the IT & management systems.

Got ours too. Now to decide .....

Counting the votes. I checked the Constitution - it says "Any voting method employed for the purpose of electing Directors shall be consistent with those methods accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission or an equivalent body (34.4)". I had a look on the AEC website and I could not find a general guideline for our style of election, the House of Reps being the closest. That elects only one person, the first to reach 51%.

The ballot paper guidelines say you can vote for only one person, or up to 10. How is this calculated? The HofReps counts all first preference (No.1 or tick) and, if someone has gained over 50% the seat is awarded. If not, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their votes distributed according to the No.2 preference, and so on until one candidate has the majority.

In our Council elections (say 5 Councillors) the votes 1 to 5 are each counted as a vote. Preferences only come into it if there is a tie and the guy with the most No.1s wins. In reality the mediocre candidate gets the most as there are people at both ends that polarise the voters so the bland guy in the middle picks up the 4 & 5 spots from the majority.

So how does our RAA election work?

The link above, bottom of post #7. 1 WA, 1 SA, 2 SEQ, 1 FNQ, but I think someone read the electoral statements and resumes and decided - 2 good blokes who are past Board members (technical & knowledge of prior decisions), plus three with broad experience in law, governance, business etc.

I won't be voting for Eugine because he was the worst treasurer - he didn't know the difference between a profit or loss or where the reserves were. If there were less capable candidates I might have voted for him for his knowledge of the history AUF/RAA provided they kept him away from the till.

If you include identifying information with your vote it is invalid. I have not received our voting forms yet - so going on past experience. The outer envelope has your membership number. That is used to cross your name off the list, and certify that it is from a valid, financial member (eligible to vote). The votes are kept unopened until the close of voting. Invalid votes are destroyed, so they can't be mixed up with valid ones. So if you include your payment, letter etc, it may end up answered.

I was a polling official at the last election. The rules there were, if you put non identifying marks on a ballot paper it was still valid, however the line between "Hey Bill, I voted for you! - AB" or "- Andy Ballott" was sufficient to declare it invalid. Initials in an electorate of 100k considered non identifying. That election was conducted under the relevant Acts which may not apply to the RAA election (I have not looked).

Fiscal policy:-

1. how do you propose to reverse the current trading losses

2. while keeping it affordable for members (policy on fee increases)

3. strategies for current reserves (usage, investment etc)

Governance:-

1. Open, transparent - how will this be achieved

2. Should "legal advice" on RAA's behalf be available to members (when requested)

Communication & Engagement:-

1. Do you support a formal "forum" to consult with a cross section of the membership

2. How do you propose to keep the membership informed and engaged (email, Sport Pilot, decisions, news)

I have not seen any 'how to vote' sheets, but it is not unusual, especially when most of the voters don't know the candidates. They don't need their permission either. When our local council was dysfunctional, the Rate Payers' Association (of which I was an active member) encouraged capable people to nominate and then after reading all the statements, talking with everyone etc, formed a list of the ones we thought most sympathetic to our cause and circulated it. 5 of the 6 got elected. The candidates need to get out and publicise themselves. Otherwise it will be a vote for a name you know, but not necessarily the best man for the job.

I was looking at AviationTrader site and then went to Aviation Advertiser - waited about 20 minutes while it was "waiting for ... " and gave up. It might too busy doing a Denial of Service on the Census?

Not a good look for the business if they are relying on people going on site to buy aircraft.

I was going to work as a Census collector - so this is what I was told. In the city areas Australia Post would deliver an envelope with a log in code. In small towns and rural areas, the paper form would be hand delivered. I consider that to be a waste of money - why couldn't that be delivered by Australia Post instead of people on hourly & km rates? Australia Post has a database of all properties. A bit miffed that they consider rural people wouldn't be internet savvy.

Got my paper version at the farm. When we went to the house in town, there was nothing there. The Collector had asked our neighbour if we were home and then decided not to leave us a form. Even if the house is vacant, there is still supposed to be an entry. Besides, we might have decided we lived in town, but were away on the farm that night. There are a couple of people living in hangars that I guess they have missed.

As for SAP, I used it when it was known a MSA (Management Science America) and then later as SAP - huge and cumbersome and designed to use reams of paper to produce a small report.

Advertising - My memory is a bit fuzzy - RAA used to do the magazine in-house, which gave them some grief. Then it was farmed out, the editorial staff were not up to aviation (and the RAA/AUF failed to give it a thorough pre-publication read) and some questionable articles were published. Then the contract was given to Brian Bigg's company who also produced the AOPA magazine. As part of that deal he got the advertising revenue. RAA paid for production & distribution. On that basis I don't think RAA gained anything from Members' Market advertising for some years. It used to be free - remember? Those of us who have been around for a few years?

Proxies - There were probably YES and NO proxies - how else can I vote, as I could not justify the travel costs down there. What would worry me more is an individual turning up with a large wad of proxies as happened with the Bunny Farmer some time back. Individuals sending theirs through for the Chairman or whoever, through the office, I have no concern about. That is democracy at work. An office bearer using RAA resources (and privileged access to the membership list) to send out a personal request for members to vote his way - as happened a few years back - NOT ON.

I am perplexed that only Rod B, of the 10 candidates, has made any contribution here. I still don't have an answer to how any of them are going to pull RAA out of the financial spiral, except to increase fees. $159k for the website, when Ian offered $1 (if I remember correctly he made the same offer earlier when RAA accepted $13k which fell over). At the AGM in Bundaberg Myles said he had spent $39k on file digitisation that also evaporated. Are we so inept with IT management?

Rod's response is to raise membership by $45 to provide a hard copy of Sport Pilot to everyone, but this will go directly to print costs. The other saviour will be the increase in MTOW which will bring (presumably) more GA aircraft on board. The "modernisation" project may reduce staff, but he says the numbers have reduced but the wage levels have gone up - no savings there. Before I vote, I want to know what the candidates intend to do about dwindling reserves and operating losses.

Moving the Members' Market to a third party provider seems a mistake, at least, as I still have trouble getting the site to work.

Voting closes 31 August - to get your vote there in time it has to go by 23rd (Australia Post says up to 6 business days from remote Aust)

8,600 members was a decision to only count flying members (pilots). The actual revenue membership is closer to 10,000. John Brandon (in his tutorials on this site Australian powered recreational aviation history ) has membership at 9,906 at 2 January 2013. The President (in his column p.7 Feb 2016 Sport Pilot) said 10,000 pilots (he probably meant Members). The number of pilots have been dropping, but non-flying has been growing. RAA seems to have a problem knowing how many members it has; viz the Annual Report debacles of 2009 (prepaids counted twice) & 2010 and 2011 (included resignations), 2012 (no figure), 2014/15 with figures that didn't make sense.

Increasing memberships by an additional $45/pa (from $215 to $260) will increase revenue by approx $430,000, but this will be wholly offset by the increased cost of production and delivery of Sport Pilot. Having an "op-out" may result in many doing so - just to save the $45, or because they don't read it now. I predict the cost per magazine will run at a loss and have to go up (again). I really don't have a solution to this, but it won't save the ship.

I note the "modernisation" project may have cost $158,673.65 (listed as intangible assets Dec 2015 financial statement). This is a one-off expense, but it is only half of the loss for that period. The biggest expenses are: Salaries $616k, Insurance $265 (about $200k is pilot insurance), Printing $164k (not including the magazine), General (travel, training, meetings) $152k which the report says will reduce. The biggest income is memberships and plane registrations $1Million. These figures are only for 6 months to Dec 2015.

June 2013 RAA had $1.71mil in cash reserves, now 2.5yrs later it is $0.97mil. Where has it gone? Where can you see savings or increased revenue that can bring the bottom line back to a healthy surplus? This is not just for you, Rod, but any and all of our candidates.

Hi Rod,

Firstly, thank you for outlining your election policies. I hope others do the same here, as I have not made up my mind yet.

Forgive me for concentrating on finances, as that has been my forte. Can you explain why RAA has lost so much money? I know some was lost in lapsed registrations due to the failed audits, and continues to be lost with aircraft that didn't return to the register, but that is small change against what you suggest has evaporated. I have heard of "settlements" over actions by previous Boards, the expenditure on IT/modernisation should be offset by staff reductions, the change to Sport Pilot should be saving something. Where did it go? Can it be turned around?

I see you are requesting an increase in fees - everyone to receive a hard copy of Sport Pilot, at a compulsory $45/yr, increased insurance cover for pilots and L2's at additional cost to them. I note you support an increase in MTOW and support to other organisations. Will this bring more aircraft registration revenue, and will RAA be compensated by the other organisations for services rendered eg doing their admin, providing tech support?

Regards

Sue

Luke Bayly - Mackay. See his resume. Assumed that if he worked in Mackay, he probably lived there too. Then again, he might be FIFO from Perth for all I know.

I am impressed with the standard of applicant. The spread is good too. No addresses so this is an educated guess for some - 1 WA, 1 TAS, 1 SA, 1 VIC, 2 NSW/ACT, 4 QLD (including one from FNQ - Keith should be happy with that). Spread of ages are good too. I am guessing that the change to a Company has attracted these new applicants as there are better protections & more recognition. The pay is still lousy. About what I get paid to be a Scout Leader. So it is a love job.