dodo

Jim, if you believe some document should be provided to you, it should be provided. Exceptions: 1 if size or cost are significant, a sensible alternative should be provided (eg if it is 2000 pages, provided electronically). In other words, some delay or alternate format should be acceptable in some cases - but it should be provided; 2 some cases of privacy or serious confidentiality should warrant a query - eg some staff matters should provoke a "are you sure you need that?" question. However, in both cases, the documents should still be provided. If a board member cannot see some documents, then who can? And how can a board member represent members with access to only the information someone else thinks is appropriate? dodo

Thanks. I think that a sensible discussion of that issue by the board is useful, and this sort of information is really useful. Publication of the outcome of the board's discussion and associated reasons (eg the legal opininion) would be great. It may sound ungrateful - it isn't meant to be - but publication of this sort of thing on the RA website would go a long way to resolve the complaints over RA secrecy, and probably resolve a lot of issues with RA. Transparency would remove the wilder speculation. thanks again, dodo

If I recall correctly, the ACT act (Associations Incorporation Act?) requires that a list of members be provided on request. I assume that means names, no idea if it includes addresses or status or type of membership. But that list should provide a correlation with the financials. You could check the act, and if I am correct, just ask for it. dodo

If that model Lightwing was provided from the factory with a prop like yours, it may be as simple as getting an L2 to sign off that it was fitted correctly. The L2 might want to remove and refit to be confident. Note: I am not sure of the accuracy of that advice. Howie at Linghwing might know better, and the Technical Manager might be able to suggest a relatively simple and inexpensive way of making your aircraft conform. I suspect the trivial issues out of the audit have been largely quantified, and now we are getting to the moderately difficult. God knows what will happen, or how long it will take to deal with the really complex or intractable issues! dodo

Sunfish, although Turboplanner has not explained his reasoning, I think he is alluding to RA being an Incorporated Association, under ACT legislation. This form of association is often used by clubs and associations, and has simple and straightforward requirements. It does not assume or require a board to be oversight of an executive & administrative arm, and in fact, in smaller associations, the board would do all the work. This works quite well is small associations - I am a member of a NSW club of about 80 members, operating under similar legislation, and it works well. But is it appropriate for RA-Aus? dodo

I thought I would get sin-binned as I made a direct allegation of xxxxxx ( x being whatever I wrote). I think it should only be used where you have made an allegation and thought better of it. However...do what you will with it. Only Apple and Samsung think you can own something as brief and obvious as that! dodo

I did suggest that if you think everything is fine, that you go flying. For myself, I wish to continue flying. So I can "be arsed" by your expression. I think the problems are real. I think they need to be resolved. I am sorry that you "can't be arsed" to address the problems, dodo EDIT removed allegation that might be true but added nothing to the discussion

Was the vitriol also "analagous"? You seem to be using techniques you consider clever, (eg mendacity, or lieing) to make some obscure point. I prefer to state what I think, and I stand by it - or I retract ashamed. I don't retreat via dissembling. I don't pretend something I said is not what I meant. So if you have something to say about grounded aircraft, breaches of legislation, failure to communicate to members, I don't think I would hear truth. The discussions on this forum are often heated, often intemperate, and often ill-considered. But they are rarely deliberately manipulative and dishonest. It is unfortunate for the board that you are defending something, which you cannot define. I think it is likely that readers might connect your approach with the board, which might be unfair to the board. Perhaps I should summarise: I prefer honesty. I am here to discuss the issues with RA, not to spin them, not to manipulate. The issues with RA are serious, especially if you have an aircraft you cannot fly, because RA has failed in one or more of it's basic purposes. You do not appear to be interested in the real issues, but in using your skills for some purpose other than valid discussion. I would remind you of your position that criticism is only allowed for those that have merited it. What merit have you? dodo

Macca, your posts seem disingenuous. After all, there was no vitriol in your posts, because you were not bitter. Perhaps you were just implanting your seed, or whatever your expertise in hostage taking suggests. In any case, I think people who read forums judge what by the sense, reason, and insight in posts, and discount those with evident bias, or intemperate attitudes. I would be interested if you have some information, or a different and useful perspective to bring to these threads. Otherwise,you seem to distribute abuse, but little else. dodo

I don't think the whole recruitment process would have been outsourced - probably just to the point of providing a suggested shortlist, and providing governance and documentation services. I would hope the board still has a role... dodo

I just thought 233 was almost too relaxed (the chillout,give it a week or two, she'll be right feel) - and then coinciding with Ian's kind warning! So I couldn't resist, dodo PS Merry Christmas to all, especially those who have had a rough month or year. I'll check in in a day or so.

OK, I will play nice with the other children, dodo

Whats wrong with 233? I thought it soothing,reasonable, placid...

I doubt it is deliberate. In my limited experience, the office simply didn't have the time to be petty. They were just wading through the work. And after that it went to the tech manager, then the consultant (so unless you have upset Dean or Neville, there isn't any opportunity for malice - if anyone had the time). So I think they are just working through the backlog, dodo

Firstly, the vitriol: From just one paragraph of your post...non-vitriol removed: spiteful amateurish rabid mob wanna-be's strip down Armchair critics and pub lawyers utterly despicable self-centred would-be-if-we could-be big-mouthed no back-up performers. Dictionary: Vitriol: bitter criticism or malice I think you qualify. Next, the real issues: - RA has significant problems. Pretty much undeniable. - the board is not responding to members concerns, both in communication, and in action. - the question "why don't you stand for the board?" can be best answered by a number of ex-board members who have contributed a great deal to RA,and also contribute on this forum (Carol Richards, for one example). If your contention that someone must have contributed in some significant and public way before criticising, I have seen no evidence that you have justified your right to judge or criticise. However, if you think that aircraft grounded after RA failing numerous CASA audits is OK, and that the turnover of technical managers is fine, and that we can't comply with regulatory requirements that the local crochet club manages to meet, then all is well. In which case, I suggest you go flying and don't worry about RA-Aus. Me, I will go to the GM and listen, and form a view at that time as to how the problems we have are being addressed, and the best way forward. dodo

Andy, to be fair, 10 days isn't a lot, if the answer is routine. What would disturb me is if you haven't received a satisfactory answer in a couple of weeks - and well before the GM. And I would be very interested in the answer. dodo

I think OME's basic point is that using GPS alone, you lose orientation. It is way too easy to just follow directions. If for somereason you then have to change your plan, youdon't have a mental picture of where you are relative to the main features or locations you need. As along time map user in a car, I still find it slightly disturbing to navigate by GPS. the reason I use GPS is because I can't reasonably read a map in one hand and drive in traffic, but it leaves me unsure of where I am. Perhaps a bigger, more comprehensive GPS - but if I don't have the time/concentration to spare to look at a map, I won't have it for a large format GPS map either. As an example, using GPS for navigation in a strange country, needing to divert would leave you unsure of the relationship between possible diversions. Of course, proper pre-trip planning obviates most of this, but in an unfamiliar area, it isn't practical to get a comprehensive idea of locations in a few hours. My guess is GPS will become all-pervasive, and a few unwary pilots will die because they trusted in one device, without a wider or more comprehensive awareness of their surroundings. Or maybe I am getting old. dodo

By that logic, we should get GA licenses before we fly ultralights. And is it wrong to learn to fly a glider via the GFA, without flying a Jabiru or Cessna first? I understand your point, but I don't think learning to fly in a Drifter or Lightwing would be so bad. What is bad is hopping in to fly a Cessna with nothing but Drifter experience (or the reverse). However, my sarcastic comment about getting a GA license may come back to bite me - I am a bit tied to RA now, just when the organisation is looking rather wobbly! dodo

Macca, your comments are probably true about all on this forum occasionally, and some - more often. However, 1 RA-Aus does have basic, systemic problems. For example, my local aero club can put out minutes on time, and publish financial statements. RA-Aus can't. The basic things that need to be done, are not done. 2 Unlike a local bowls club, we don't have the option to find another club. RA-Aus is also our regulator. So we can't easily walk away, which is what I would do if I easily could. I suppose I could go GA - but I have only just got my RA certificate. Start again, I suppose. Thanks for the rip-off! 3 The existing RA board/executive doesn't communicate. As always, that drives some wild speculation and rumours. The wildest I have heard this year was someone posting that all RA aircraft were to be grounded. Unfortunately,a few days later that turned out to be half true - link below (the first post in this thread http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-general-meeting-called.52288/ if you do not remember) If you think all is fine with RA, then I suggest you relax, and don't worry, best wishes, dodo

I wanted to learn to fly ultralights, and my interest is in little flappy things that emerge from a paddock looking improbable. However, practically,you have to learn in something else ("a pretend cessna" if you like). Once you have a certificate and a cross-country rating,then you can get a low-performance, tail-wheel and 2 stroke endorsement. A bit frustrating, and maybe I can understand how it happened, but it is silly, a bit like having to get a GA licence before being able to get an ultralight endorsement! dodo

In either fixing the existing the current organisation,or starting a new one, you need to be very clear about what your objectives are. I am not much interested in a new organisation, but I would like to see changes in the existing one: - better communication and information to members; - improved governance, process, administration. However, if you look at how the organisation is run, I see the following: - good financial position, indicative of good financial management (despite governance issues) -reasonably good regulation, not overly heavy handed (despite process, administration and current registration issues), although tending to become prescriptive. - definitely being run for the membership. So I would rather fix the problems we have. dodo

If the RPL is successful, it may achieve most of Volksy's objectives by encouraging light GA flying under CASA rather than RA. RA currently has a huge attraction in that no CASA medical is required to fly. Even for those with no current or past medical issues, this may be a factor. It is unclear how the RPL is developing, but it may be interesting. I believe one of the current challenges for RA is that it is increasingly taking on low-end GA responsibilities, and being pushed towards GA-style regulation. dodo

At least, by putting the full statements on the website, we are now compliant with our obligations. I don't understand what wally could think saying "ring the office if you want eight pages of technical detail" counts as publication. Putting it on the website, with a note in "latest news" is simple, clear, and everything is now published. (And low cost!) I still have serious concerns about how we needed three attempts to meet a very standard and very well understood regulatory requirement (1 meeting - no notes, 2 with the magazine - no note 1, no auditors statement, 3 website - complete!). dodo

The "who" doesn't come into it, until you have determine that the "what" was really very naughty, and then the "how" becomes a polite way of saying "who". However, if it is found that the "what" was naughty, but authorised, obscured or fudged so no one can be prosecuted, then it would have been bad (defamatory, or embarrassing) to allege fraud or other illegality, when it turns out you can't do much.... It is a peculiar and specialised a style of writing. However, if you can translate, it is saying "We have an issue we should tell you about, but can't tell much you about. So if you get cranky later when it turns out to be a debacle, we did inform you as much as we could". I know the board hasn't informed us in the past, but this has a nasty ring to it, and I suspect the circumspect language is that of an accountant who thinks they may have a real problem on their hands, and is trying to responsibly disclose what he/she can now, without prejudicing an investigation. The auditors would usually be involved to provide an "arms-length", so it isn't a personal opinion. Again, I think we just have to wait. dodo

If they have their auditors in, it is serious; if it was just an accounting issue, you disclose it, run it past the auditors,and resolve it. Like AR, I suspect something illegal, or probably illegal has been found. I take the announcement as "umm, we have a serious problem; serious enough that we can't say more until it is clearly defined, but we want the members to know now, rather than be accused of hiding things later" So we wait, dodo PS Major - I would take our presidents accounting expertise more seriously if he had got the treasurer to publish the accounts. I am surprised that he didn't take that omission more seriously.