FlyingVizsla

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 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.

800 agree with me? I should have nominated! The other 9,000 are not interested and I expect won't bother voting. Some of the 800 might give it a miss as they don't know anyone on the list rather than in opposition to the new constitution.

An ACR gives RAA an assurance that the aircraft exists and a trusted third party has seen it and is reasonably convinced that it is the same rego. Just me being suspicious - imagine the owner prangs his aircraft doing something dodgy, doesn't report it, fails to pay the rego for a couple of years, gets offered a Rotax that fell off the back of a truck, finds some parts from another wreck, wires it all together and then attempts to "renew" the rego as if nothing happened. New forms out 1st August 2016 - ACR (tech form 013) is quite comprehensive. Is this form different to previous? Continuing to pay the rego looks like a cheaper option than letting it lapse.

This is a change from the election statements we used to get, where the emphasis was on how many hours flown on each type. From past performance, the number of hours flown didn't translate into knowledge of finance (a treasurer who didn't know the difference between a loss and a profit, or where the bulk of the money was invested) or technical knowledge (failing multiple CASA audits which RAA is still paying for), governance (allowing an under performing CEO to continue and actually give him a hefty pay rise), treat the membership badly (viz what they did to Ian denying him membership renewal until after nominations closed & refusing his help that would have got the job done for $1 rather than paying $13k for a fiasco, and other questionable actions against others). The organisation is too big to run as a flying school club. RAA needs people on the management board who can make sure the employed staff get the job done in the best way possible and can give the required direction and oversight. I knew nothing about footy, little about the volunteer fire brigade, and other local clubs, but they knew enough to come get me to clean up the mess and be their treasurer when they failed audits or something went seriously pear shaped. Some of the new blood might be of this ilk, and I would appreciate knowing a bit more. Regretfully Keith didn't nominate, so the Board will have to struggle on without his inside knowledge.

The candidates have been announced - 5 to be chosen from these 10. Voting ends 31 August 2016 Andrew Schox Eugene Reid Graeme Allinson Keith Finlayson Lorenzo Mazzocchetti Luke Bayly Rodney Birrell Scott Bretland Tony King Trevor Bange Further information - resumes and statements are on the RAA website. A link to the page is on the RAA email to members.

Is this new? A wing part found in Tanzania. Wing found in Tanzania 'highly likely' from missing MH370 MH370: Wing part found in Tanzania 'highly likely' from missing Malaysia Airlines plane A piece of aircraft debris found in Tanzania is "highly likely" to be from missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, Australia's Transport Minister Darren Chester says. The wing part was brought to Canberra for analysis after it was found by locals on Pemba Island off the coast of Tanzania last month. .....

I think a tangible asset would be more attractive, rather than training, which you would have to arrange to suit the locality of the recipient, or if a training organisation is nominated, then the locality is restricted. Offering a "brand new Plane VH registered or RAA registered plus goodies = RRP $100,000" will appeal to more people as you can keep it, trade it or sell it. The charity can approach the factory for a cheaper price as they can claim off tax and also get lots of free publicity. The winner then gets to choose which (VH or RAA) and the charity settles the bill and "delivers". The option is there for the winner to negotiate with the factory and maybe trade up to a more advanced model. A plane would be more attractive. Once you have your RAA certificate and cross country, there is little more "training" needed and training isn't something you can on-sell easily. First find or set up a charity (not-for profit incorporated organisation) with the stated aim of supporting your cause (sick kids, old pilots, cyclone victims ...), approach an aircraft factory, or second hand aircraft dealer, and do a deal eg $100k RRP plane at $75k with publicity scheme, work out the costs to run the raffle (licence $1,000 + printing $500 + advertising $2,000 + sundries etc), prize must be at least 20% of gross = max ticket sales $500k, set realistic ticket price - surprisingly people will more likely pay $50 if they get 5 tickets than one at $50, remember that there will be unsold tickets in books sent to "agents", set a realistic closing date and allow enough time for all sold ticket butts to make it back to base. Draw with plenty of fanfare to keep both aircraft provider and future ticket buyers keen, follow-up publicity. Pass the proceeds (less reasonable costs) to the Cause. Keep good records - they may be audited. Be aware that ticket sales may not result in what you expected - so who carries the loss? I have vague recollections of an Australian plane raffle, but not sure of the outcome. With today's social media ticket buyers could come from overseas too, so a clause that the aircraft will be "delivered" in Australia and some form of secure on-line ticket purchase will boost sales. Sue

Each State has its own raffle regulations. For example Qld Competitions, raffles, bingo and other charitable games | Queensland Government covers raffles etc run by not-for-profit organisations for charitable purposes. An aircraft raffle would most likely fall into Category 3 - gross above $50,000, the prize has to be at least 20% of the estimated gross. The licence fee runs from $400 to $3,300. The fund raising is enhanced by getting the supplier to provide a wholesale, discounted or free article which is then advertised at its Recommended Retail (the value of the prize). Second hand is also acceptable, but there has to be a valuation by a recognised expert in the field. The prize must be delivered within one month of the draw. A combination of aircraft and training is acceptable, as is a choice (eg Jabiru VH or RAA registered + training) to the same value.