Keith Page

On 30/05/2025 at 7:11 PM, Red said:

Jeez, you just completely contradicted yourself within 2 posts

Not a bother he is just like the rest of the crowd.

Head office is so very quiet despite the rumors which are falling off the grape.

We got told there is going to be a news release shortly ----- BUT ----- we are all just waiting.

Better coming from the horse's mouth than off the grape vine.  

On 10/04/2025 at 5:32 PM, turboplanner said:

So what did they do to upset you?

 

Turbo.. Big question here are you a member/shareholder/or other of RAAus or own a RAAus regestered aircraft?

Just interested..

On 3/4/2025 at 5:58 PM, FlyingVizsla said:

RAAus Ltd is a Not-for-Profit company run by and for members.  Keith Page was a director of an alternative to RAAus - EELA - which was a For Profit company, but it never got approval from CASA to operate.  Rod Birrell has a long history with AUF / RAAus.  

 

There are others around who feel they have been snubbed by the changing organisation and have an axe to grind, or look at the AUF days with rose coloured glasses.

 

There are people who want to go back to the days when the Board & employees failed 5 CASA audits and ignored all warnings - CASA then stopped any aircraft registrations and appointed someone to oversee the whole process (at members' cost) until they got their house in order.  We still have a plane that was taken off the register then, and hasn't returned.  There were complaints that the Board consisted of Flying School operators who were only there to protect their businesses.

 

One downside of the Incorporated organisation, which was moved to Victoria at one stage, then moved to Canberra, was that the Secretary had to reside in the State of Incorporation.  When a Board member was Secretary, he had to either reside in that State (or territory) or they had to nominate one of the office staff as Secretary (which usually happened). 

 

RAAus will never be 100% acceptable to all members.  Part of that is the legislation they have to live within, which is a dog's dinner.  Aircraft that can't fit anywhere etc.

Not quite correct there Sue….

ELAAA you are saying a profit organisation, just a question.. any organisation has to make a profit so expansion, development and the education programs.

The other issue Part 149, have a slow think and check that one out.

On 4/4/2025 at 8:51 AM, Arron25 said:

Hi Keith, Time to dig out all the paperwork and give CASA an Alternative (only thing to change... lose helicopters)

Sorry….I have moved on……..I am involved with another project and do not have any time for anything else.

As for ELAAA there is exciting news in the pipe line.

On 3/4/2025 at 3:53 PM, Moneybox said:

Are there any facts to confirm reasons for all this action or is this just a group of members tearing down the establishment that's supporting us? Mutiny is not a good thing unless all are about to go down with the ship.

There is no mutiny..

The big one “the coroners inquiry”, have a look at that and have a slow think. That is not a nice look for RAAus.

The question I have to ask. Why have we been told anything from management’s perspective??

To me that is an attempt to hide the issue and others. 
imagine the legal costs to RAAus remember that is members money.

22 minutes ago, jackc said:

And those white ants that are still there?  Should immediately be removed, in the best interests of the RAA’s future……..

 

Come on Jack, RAAus is now only kept alive by life support, turn the life support off and start again.

Not a whisper to the members from RAAus — only what we are hearing is from the press, hence there is a case of hiding facts and responsibilities.

2 hours ago, Admin said:

Myself and this site has been there and done that which resulted in opening the door to the business people who stole our Association from us

I was there and witnessed the white ant eating…..those who did the white anting should be ashamed of themselves.

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

That's a bit of a cocksure statement, Keith. No-one in RAA Ltd has been found guilty of any law-breaking, yet - that will be after any criminal charges are laid, and after a trial is held, and the offender/s is/are found guilty.

The DPP has to be sure of securing a conviction before they will press charges. Some people thought the Ball Bay crash pilot would almost certainly be found guilty of manslaughter - but the charge was dropped due to no certainty of securing a conviction.

I'd suggest the fact that the pax in the Ball Bay crash went for a ride accepting the statement on the instrument panel that experimental aircraft are not built to the same standard as certified aircraft - and passengers accept the increased risk accordingly - had something to do with the Crown being very doubtful of securing a conviction in that case. At the end of the day, the Crown must prove criminal actions or intent, to secure a conviction.

 

In the case of RAA Ltd, Public Liability covers negligence of the insured party, that leads to loss or losses - but it doesn't cover criminal activity resulting in loss or losses. The $64 question is, whether there was simply negligence on the part of the RAA Ltd employees/managers in this Matt Farrell case, or if criminal intent and actions were involved. Passing judgement before any police investigation occurs, or charges are laid, and defendants found guilty, is quite premature, IMO.

I a court of law, If you and I lie by the fact of omission we know the outcome. Simple — we can not omit what know to alter on outcome.

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You probably should have stopped the change to RAA Ltd.

There may be plenty of difficulties getting inside RAA Ltd from the outside.

A Special General Meeting (if allowed under the RAA Ltd Constitution) will be a different animal to an SGM under the Incorporated Association ACT Legislation, so I'd start looking at that aspect first.

 

Also, in terms of dollars, what the Coroner/DPP do will be quite different to what a Public Liability Lawyer might do, so it would be smart to get some advice before rushing in.

 

 

Quite simple the law has been broken and those who broke the law need to be punished and public liability cover will not cover deviant behaviour.

4 hours ago, jackc said:

I received this information today. I think maybe th members need to consider a Special General meeting of RAAus in light of this.

Suggest IF you want further information please call the writer.

RAAus future is at stake here…

 

There is an urgent matter that all RAAus pilots and aircraft owners need to consider. If left unresolved this issue will adversely impact your right to fly light sport aircraft.

 

 

CORONERS INQUEST Final Report - Jabiru Accident Mount Beauty. 

 

In his report the Coroner, Paul Lawrie, has recommended legal action be taken against RAAus. He has referred this matter for prosecution to the Department of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. 

 

The key matter has been the stated issue of a pilot certificate and endorsements without adequate pilot training by RAAus and the withholding of information that should have been released to the Coroner.

 

The responsible RAAus officers in this matter, previous Operations Manager Ms J.Bailey and the RAAus Chairman Mr M.Monk. 

 

Over the last 40 years of RAAus’s existence we have never had such such an adverse report made against our organisation. 

 

It is estimated over $300,000+ of member's money, that is your money, has already been spent on legal and associated costs by RAAus.The losses continue to accumulate. Unfortunately there is no end in sight for the actual and planned legal proceedings being taken against RAAus.

 

RAAus will become insolvent if current and future legal claims made against it are successful. 

 

Despite the obvious need to do so the Coroner's report has not been published by RAAus for its members. Even a link to the Coroner's report in a RAAus newsletter has not been made available. I believe most would see this is an attempt to keep the report a secret. 

 

So why does this report matter to you? RAAus may have its licensing approvals suspended or terminated by CASA. Control of sport aviation may be handed back to CASA. Your flying privileges may be adversely affected should this occur. 

 

So what can any RAAus member do about this catastrophe?

 

Firstly please consider the serious issues that now confront RAAus. Please also forward the Coroners report and the Australian Aviation Magazine article on to other interested RAAus members.  If enough RAAus members chose to be informed and be involved in we will be able to effect change. 

 

You can have your voice heard by supporting common sense reform of RAAus and how it operates.

 

Please see this as a call to action, let me know by return email if you are prepared to let you voice be heard. What is needed is sufficient RAAus members calling for action to resolve the significant problems we are now facing.

 

The Coroners report and Australia Aviation article have been enclosed as PDF copies to download ….

 

Regards

 

Rodney Birrell

 

Save the RAAus team.

RAAus member #35

 

0422-446622

 

Victorian Coroners Inquest Report - Jabiru Aircraft Accident Mt Beauty, Victoria

I can remember clearly a few years ago  there was so much noise regarding poor management of RAAus and how useless the board was…..things were pretty good them BUT now this current mob of managers have let this dilemma get to the point of destruction for RAAus. So we all can sit back and watch the show go broke and disintegrate. The other issue this current gang is out and about closing schools so how will flying expand with no schools.

On 04/04/2024 at 4:31 PM, skippydiesel said:

Would it not be quicker to turn out composite aircraft/drones?

 

Additional bonus would be speed & duration, possibly even less radar signature.

Card board would be the go as radar cannot see it.

On 06/02/2025 at 5:45 AM, jackc said:

The subject says it all, which being a Shareholder in RAAus which involves potential financial liability, that bothers me?

I would like to be proven wrong?  Given a few occurrences of recent times, concerning legal actions, Coronial Investigations, alleged possible improprieties etc, with potentially disastrous financial outcomes.  
This could place me in a financially vulnerable position, personally? IF legal actions go horribly wrong for RAAus, and there is a massive financial claim against  RAAus?  After all Directors Guarantees are financially  exhausted, then shareholders can become financially liable? Under our current RAAus structure? 

Yes, there is insurance but that can become null and void, if impropriety is discovered and I would allege that cover ups to a Coronial Enquiry could form part of that, in one case?  
Yes, conversations with people by phone have made me aware of these possibilities, so therefore I put it to the Forum for comment. 
Any written evidence to the contrary, would help erase any fears about what I have stated above?

 

I have just been made aware of the shambles, yes is a bit of a concern.

I wonder what the next move will be.

 

On 06/05/2024 at 3:10 PM, Roundsounds said:

I’ve gone back to GA, the cost of RAA outweighs the benefits for me. 

You are on to the RAA, actually a good con to get money out of people for a pie in the sky.

On 27/03/2024 at 7:58 AM, turboplanner said:

However, it seems to me that training and theory training could do with a massive boost Keith.

I am completely befuddled as to the modus operandi, just where is the expansion. The training and theory is getting to be a replica of the GA schools. 

The exact reason why AUF was set up, all has all gone only the memories are left.

The little rag and strings are basically history. There are still people about who wish to fly and enjoy these little machines.

Mention 2Stroke now one gets blank stares.

19 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

In the Members' Communiques - The CEO didn't renew his contract as he had another job.  The job was advertised.  Maxine, who has worked for RAAus for 20 years and acted as CEO from time to time, was appointed.  Jill Bailey retired - it is a thankless job and she works away from the office a lot.  Her Assistant has stepped up to the job and his job is now advertised.  So - no great conspiracy there.  These things happen in the best of organisations. 

Thank you Sue,

All done very quietly -- no fanfare as most times we hear.

KP.

Wondering if anyone has heard what is going on?

The grape vine has been a bit busy.

Jill Bailey has resigned.

The CEO has resigned and one of the office staff has taken on the roll.

Not sure however someone else could have heard something.

Hmmmmmmmmmm we will see.???

Just wait.

This price shenanigans could be the start of the end of RAA.

Just a thought from looking from the outside looking in. 

On 07/04/2023 at 5:46 AM, turboplanner said:

 

And yet they have the duty of care to ensure there is no accidental negligence in the operations they administer.

Hand wringing isn't going to reduce the problem.

A compliance and enforcement component will

Hmmmmmmmmm....Pushing the compliance and enforcement component will greatly increase the "Catch Me if You Can" factor.

Comes down to simple marketing  strategy , One is better off being friends and offering -- than getting out there with a big stick.

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Keith, I'm probably aware of the same information you're aware of; I was not at all happy with the outcome or the way it was achieved, but the constitution certainly provided powers to take action, and that wasn't taken; people didn't stand up when they could have, so technically the members voted as I said. There's not a lot of point chewing it over now, because there aren't a lot of people wanting to change, and more importantly, no really big issues have come up, which in itself is a good thing.

One of the shakers who caused/advised all that - got the heave ho out of another organization, he did not take too kindly at all.

12 minutes ago, jackc said:

Turbo,

 

Did you stand up and say something?  Did you take any action or investigate same?

No one listened...they were set on an agenda without questions for the shakers.

20 minutes ago, Kenlsa said:

Evidence, not hearsay thanks.

ONLY direct evidence given by the person who actually saw or heard the incident, counts. All the rest: ‘I was told, did you hear, I heard that, he was actually there and he said to me ‘ is called hearsay.

 I used to do this for a living. So no more unless you are in a position to give direct evidence. Then I am happy to hear it.

 

Ken

 

 

Didn't you hear the dogs barking?

All that noise would have told you something...as I have moved on am not that overly bothered any more nearly all has slipped my mind. Why linger on shoddy outcomes plenty of other great things to achieve.

However the clear judgement I made at the time will stay with me.

KP.

On 26/03/2022 at 2:44 AM, turboplanner said:

RAA members actually voted for the shift from being an Incorporated Association, to handing administration over to a Company, albeit with directors being voted in by the members.

 

In the Incorporated Association there was local Executive representation and you could raise an issue like this, and if necessary vote it out, but with the company you don't have that hads on access, and it seems don't get to know what decisions are being made or even what the agenda is.

 

 

 

 

I beg to differ regarding the RAA members voting regarding transferring into a company.  I have on good authority from a current board member (at the time) this process was not done honestly and I have to agree with him as he gave me a set of of circumstances which did not indicate honesty. 

On 03/11/2020 at 7:43 PM, turboplanner said:

That just mirrors what's happening in the automotive industry these days. On board cameras pick up in bulk any out of date registrations on vehicles using the road.

It remains to be seen whether RAA have set up an electronic compliance system.

Oi Turbo,

We pay membership for that, this situation simply put we are getting less for what we pay for.

How would you perform if you went to Woolies and they started giving you a kilo short of what you paid for?