FlyingVizsla

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Going back over the past 15 years RAA members haven't had a good record of studying their Constitution  and following through with the correct procedure,

It appears this is the case here - the motion of No Confidence was raised from the floor after the formal business of the AGM, which had to be adjourned while it was considered.  It was found to be invalid.

The RAAus Communique notes:  The disruptive behaviour by a minority of members has resulted in unnecessary and significant costs to members and is disappointing. 

The Communique says - Today sees the conclusion of the 2023 Annual General Meeting. In summary, a Board resolution (Resolution 4) that sought to make some updates to the constitution was withdrawn by the Board due to concerns about administrative procedures that may have affected our ability to conduct a fair and reasonable process. Member Rodney Birrell had also put forward a resolution (Resolution 5) to make changes to the constitution and was offered the opportunity to withdraw the resolution for the same reasons. He chose not to do this and after being put to members the resolution did not reach the required majority of 75% and therefore was not passed.

I would like to know what the "administrative procedures" were that failed the membership.  I guess it was with Proxy Votes, or maybe the communication of the Resolutions?

Both the No Confidence and the Administrative Procedures have unnecessarily cost RAAus and therefore members.

So I guess Rod's group were hoping to raise the No Confidence from the floor, and didn't get the opportunity. 

The AGM was reconvened for 15 minutes today 15/12/23, I signed up for the MS Teams meeting.  I clicked the link about 10 mins before the meeting, but just got the screen telling me to Wait, someone will allow you to join.  By the time I was admitted they were saying there were no further business, goodbye.  All over in about 4 mins?

Our Club got an Urgent notice from Rod Birrell et al, saying there was a No Confidence vote against Michael Monk.  What happened with that?  What did I miss?

On 02/12/2023 at 8:51 PM, LoonyBob said:

Much thanks!

6 hours ago, steve woods said:

Interested in the Pulsar, any info would be appreciated

Have put up a Classified.

1 hour ago, LoonyBob said:

got a link to the Pulsar?

I will have to do another Classie - the original Classifieds disappeared with all the discussion on this one.  The guy who owns it has been too ill to fly for years.  It has sat in our hangar for all that time.  Good looking plane, but he made a half hearted attempt at selling then repelled all boarders.  I suppose he realises this time, it has to go, he will never fly it.  Good looking plane, originally built VH, comes with a box full of correspondence with CASA regarding the build and conversion to tailwheel.  The current owner changed it to RAAus 19- so he could work on it himself.  I'll get something together soon.

Yes, gone to a bloke who has built one before.  Hopefully it too will fly.

We are still looking to sell the 55-GA Lightwing and the mate's tailwheel 19-Pulsar.  Both low priced.  The Pulsar is not for a novice, but goes like the clappers.

I had been digitising the old AUF magazines which sometimes have listings of rego, make, model etc.  There's photos and articles.  I am still missing some early editions.

Early single seat planes may never have been issued a number.  I found one which seems to fall into this category, the guy who now has it is trying to fix her up and fly it again.  All my searching came to nothing. 

When we get flying cars, regos on drones etc, there really will be an alphabet soup in the sky.

AUF initially messed up on rego numbers, not forward thinking enough to imagine more than 999 planes, computers, databases and further categories.  They had to rescind some numbers (one of our planes was a victim) to sort it out.  In an ideal world a unique number would follow the plane from cradle to grave and not be reallocated.  Remeber the scandal of 001 that was taken by a former President of the AUF for his plane, when the original 001 plane was being rebuilt?

I think the numbers are starting to run out.  Ultralights, particularly the early home built were retired due to technological obsolescence, unobtainable parts, engines, structural integrity, aging owners and an inability to find any buyers.  That happened to our Wheeler Scout.  Numbers were allocated to builders, who then never got the plane registered.  So it does make sense to re-allocate numbers for planes that will never fly again.  However, there are people who rebuild and want to keep the rego, even only to save the history and the work required to change placards and decals.

I agree, it is nothing new, my C152 used to be a DC-3.

An issue I see, is that the last owner on the RAAus books may not be aware of who owns it now.  As it costs money to keep a plane on the RAAus register, owners are more likely to let it lapse until they can get it airworthy again.  They can sell and not inform RAAus.  On the other hand, VH regos are free and perpetual, provided you don't inform them that it has been scrapped.

Because I have so much history of AUF aircraft, I get enquiries from people who have found a plane and want to do it up.  While that may sound like the future is bright; most of these will never fly again.  My first port of call is the RAAus register, which gives me basic detail and when it was last registered.  I can then have a look at the accident database (prior to that date).  Then I look at the history I have.  At present we are looking at 3 planes returning to the register once the ACR is done, and others in the process. 

AUF solved their 999 plane problem by putting a 0 in front making the range to 9,999.  Perhaps RAAus could put another 0 in front?  I just want them to keep the history visable.

RAAus are looking at re-allocating registration numbers from aircraft that have been removed from the Register. 

It has been handy to be able to look up the aircraft rego and find out when it lapsed and some information about it (serial No. etc).  I hope some way of still finding this out remains, even after the number has been re-allocated.

I know a number of people who have bought wrecks or unregistered planes with the intention of returning to the Register.  Keeping the number, keeps the history and also avoids the work associated with taking numbers off wings etc.  I am not opposed to this re-allocation of numbers, but keep the history please.

RAAus will be contacting owners, but in some cases the plane was sold with the rego lapsed with no regard for who bought it.  I know one that crashed in a paddock, the owner took the engine and abandoned it.  The farmer ended up giving it to someone who is now rebuilding it.  Same with deceased estates, where the half built kit goes to whoever made an offer and took it.

This is from their Newsletter

Review of Cancelled Aircraft Registrations

As part of an update to RAAus’ IT infrastructure, we will shortly be commencing a review of our database to ensure that information is accurate and up to date. In particular, we will be conducting a review of cancelled aircraft registrations.

We will be shortly reaching out to owners of unregistered aircraft to determine if these aircraft are required to remain on the register. Once this has been determined, these aircraft will be re-registered, de-registered or placed on hold for members who wish to retain their registration number.

RAAus offers new aircraft owners the ability to choose a registration number when they register an aircraft. By reviewing cancelled aircraft registrations these numbers may be returned for future use by RAAus members.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to our Technical team.

16 hours ago, coljones said:

Motion 4 was withdrawn by the board

It's a pity that they didn't split the reforms into separate Motions, because there were less controversial issues, such as better defining email as a means of communication, that are now not dealt with.

The AUF had some very long serving men, and some who either didn't contribute or had their own agenda, but were elected unopposed or simply because their name was known.  I used to be in favour of finite terms, but now with decades of volunteering, I think it should be left to the members to decide.  But also think we need some information on the various Board members' performance and participation on which to base our vote.

I've seen good clubs fail because they lost long-term office bearers and the new faces had no background.  Then you run out of volunteers - last few elections were sparce - current members unopposed, needing to nominate people onto the Board unelected.  And only 9% of members interested enough to vote.

I couldn't watch the AGM as we were otherwise engaged.  Does anyone know which resolution got up?

Thanks for that Robert, unfortunately I can no longer edit the Title.  I wonder where the Coast Guard got their info from?

Still, thankful that it ended with a bit of embarrassment, loss of $$s but not loss of life.

Now updated with location & plane

Cessna Challenger Learjet ditched into the ocean at Barwon Banks, 20 nautical miles east off Mooloolaba

Changed title to reflect this new info.

Results are in.  Only 958 members voted out of approx 10,000. 

Michael Monck & Andrew Scheiffers have been successful, both previous Board members.

Great day, huge crowds, good fundraiser.  The Aero Club had run out of bread by 10:30am (sausage on serviette only).  Unfortunately we couldn't get airside to look at the parked planes, could only wonder from afar.  Massive collection of cars and motor bikes.  Aerobatics, flyovers.  Was worth the trip. 

Bigger than last year, when we arrived (got dropped off), all the parking was taken and the streets outside were full up.  The gate keepers had run out of paper for tickets/receipts and the entry guys just had to trust we paid on the way in.  There would be some very tired people yesterday.  We walked for hours, the stalls and food vans had long queues.  Looking forward to next year.

I watched the Live Steam of the Candidates last night.  The questions could have been better - a couple answered "What he said ..." A fair bit of waffling.  You can watch it again on YouTube.  Probably a link on the RAAus members portal.

Diversification of income stream to relieve the pressure on membership and registration fees was raised but not explained.  It sounded like offering fees for services to external bodies.  Improving the membership offering mentioned getting ATSB to investigate, CTA, more aircraft, bigger role for schools (from a CFI), remove red tape.

I encourage you to listen to the broadcast and make up your mind about who to vote for.  Voting opened today and is open for a month.  Those without email have voting papers posted snail mail, so there will be a delay to results with an allowance for a vote posted at the last minute to make it to Canberra. 

Whatever you think about the process, at least cast a vote or you will get the same again.  🙂

Page 75 of Sport Pilot - How J160 won the outback air race.... Mr FV wants to know what is the gizmo with all the knobs?

The RAAus candidates have been announced.  I was beginning to think that members were losing interest as the last election was unopposed and before that they had to make an appointment.  Now you have a choice.  There are 2 positions available and 5 candidates.  Members can sign in to the RAAus website and go to Governance -> Board Election.  Each has a statement and an email for contact.  Three are current or past Board members.