terryc

Every time an aircraft is re-registered or changes owners a UACR is required to be completed by an L2. This really is a tick the box episode, and carries no guarantee of airworthiness, although many mistakenly think it does. Sorry Maj I read the above and misinterpreted what you were saying. When I read re-registered I thought you meant yearly registration but I see you meant re-registered after a long lapse. If most accidents are pilot error how would this change be of any value at all. If it could be shown that there is a large number of raa aircraft flying with faults or there are deaths as a result of faulty aircraft then ok. The problem I have is I like things the way they are where the responsibility sits with the owner and pilot. I as a pilot don't rely on an l2 to tell me my plane is ok to fly I decide myself if it's ok to fly. I do the maintenance, I want the responsibility. For people who are unable to maintain their aircraft or don't have the hands on skills then by all means get it done by some one else but don't inflict this on every body else with a new set of costs and everything else that goes along with it.

Surely your not suggesting an l2 airworthiness inspection every 12 months. I remember someone on this forum costing such an idea a few years ago and it was so over the top no one could afford it. You cannot do something like that in half measure as once the l2 puts his name to it his responsible. If such an idea gets up that's the end for me.

aerochute kev, for those that don't get it we must say it again and again, there is no situation that exists that requires anybody to step outside the guidelines of good governance . I agree with you when it comes to a stalemate go to the membership. It's not that hard.

Hi Maj, I don't have your expertise but that is exactly as I see it also.

Why can't something like an I of A be a contract between the operational side of Raa and the board as a means of stopping the board from sticking their nose into operational matters, hence they could do I dunno board things maybe. [ my first and last attempt at humour ]

Thanks Jim, I agree with four meetings a year and a reduced board number as well. I think more meetings are an imperative even if the board takes time to reduce in number.

I agree with Turbs and I thought that was a given. The Manager position doesn't need to kick in until we a a fair bit through the implementation. This gives plenty of time for proper recruitment processes. This shouldn't be a reason for increased fees we should be putting out hand out to casa for a bigger cut of the pie first.

Thanks Jim, I hope the others are able to reason it through as you have done. Thank you also for keeping us informed. This is exactly what people have been saying about good governance in this thread, this is an example of it. What do you think of more face to face board meetings, it seems to me that your backs to the wall some what when you can't be eye ball to eye ball when discussing issues as important as this one.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Well written and I agree with most of what you have said but I think you have missed the point entirely with regards to my position in particular and the governance position in general. We are all aware that the top issue at the moment is as you say our compliance but aside from this is Ed's lack of due process in achieving his intentions and the failure of Ed to give any regard to his promises at the Feb meeting and his fellow board members. My main objection is the idea put forward in this and other threads that due process doesn't matter in this instance because of the urgency. It's the failure of the board in keeping to due process that created this mess. I Have made the point before that Ed was expecting to get some flack from the members and this is obvious from the letter he posted on the Raa website. So do we like Ed decide not to worry about due process in this instance because it suits us, I suggest not. A censure motion by some members of the board is quite appropriate given their stated positions and it should be accepted by Ed knowing as he does he was stepping outside of his authority. This does two things, first that Ed shows by his acceptance of censure that he does respect due process and reminds others of it's requirements. I would be the last person wanting Ed's head on a plate and maybe would have done the same thing if I was a member of the board [no I wouldn't] BUT I certainly would not be offended if I then came under censure and I would certainly be saying I would NEVER do that again. Something I was taught as a child was to accept your punishment like a man.

I don't know what forum you read [ pmccarthy] but from my point of view this one is across the board a very informative, well reasoned and forward thinking with a strong push for change. The only point of debate is how to go about it, who would lead it, and is it too late to salvage what we have and just make some changes to it. It's the poor performance of the board over a couple of years that has brought about the secrecy and lack of communication Nobody want's to communicate their own failings. So for starters this needs to change. The way we vote for our reps who in a lot of cases we don't even know them, this needs to change. The board interfering in management this needs to change. The board not knowing their proper role also needs to change. People who think they have something to offer without analyzing what it is they bring to the table, this needs to change. Six monthly meetings is absolute rubbish, how can a board operate without forming a bond of unity which can't happen with twice yearly meetings. The executive is no longer required to operate as it does and needs a re-think. I can go on and on. If the board operated as it should I don't believe we would be in this mess at all, to the contrary we could be an example of excellence under this model. Having said that maybe to achieve all this it might be easier to change our operations completely.

While you continue with this idea you have we [those that care about proper governance] have no chance of getting the board to change it's MO. If we end up being grounded and as a result we can have a board that respects proper process then it will be all worthwhile. I hope that doesn't happen of course. There can never be any excuse for what has been going on with Raa, over the last 12 months. You are entitled to your opinion but please stop trying to bully people into submission.

I agree with all that you have said Pete but how do you suppose we put pressure on the board. All of the ways that we have come up with to date have failed. The idea that we all ring our rep and then magically all's well is not going to cut it now. I have no intention of asking my rep to hand his vote over to Ed so he can do as he pleases. I've been saying all along that following proper processes is not optional and just because out backs are to the wall doesn't mean we throw that out of the window. Casa would be just as frustrated with Raa's poor governance as it is with non compliance.

This is not an emergency[bad choice of words] What I meant to say was DON'T PANIC.

This is not an emergency if it's true but one last chance to get it right. They had better not stuff this up if they do there will be no other chances. This is what I was talking about a couple days ago about getting two capable people to sit down and draw up a plan to get out of this mess. Casa has given them 24 hrs. The process is still the same but I would include legals as well and the ball should be already rolling. For those very skilled and switched on people on this forum [ seven in total ] it's time to offer yourselves as a caretaker admin in the short term until we have full elections and start again.

Hi Marty, there is a variation signed by chis heinz showing the details. I'll see if I can find it. I think I saw it on the matronics website. Terry

Far from being concerned at the tone of this thread I'm excited knowing that despite the gross lack of communication from the board to the members somehow we can gleam a bit here and a bit there and come up with a shadow of what's going on and it appears we have a number a serious issues. There are a couple of comments I would like to make. I've employed staff for the best part of thirty years and my experience tells me if I hear rumblings of discontent I need to address it now, not tomorrow or next week. If I wait till someone comes to me it's too late. So when I hear this constant call to ring your reps I know firstly it won't happen and secondly it's too late. Why can't we learn that communication starts with the board and our reps not the other way around, I remember Ian making a comment about this very thing, "if I get back on the board I'll show you what communication is'' or something to that effect. With the obvious heightened awareness of the members at the moment just imagine if we all rang our reps. While this idea continues that we are responsible for communication, the board has an excuse not to start. Secondly, I don't know Ed and cannot comment either way on his suitability for the president's Job, but I can say this, nothing I have said would lead to the need for Ed to resign, the same as facthunter's comment. The board should censure him and he should accept it then get on with what so urgently needs doing. Just a thought, Communication is a skill developed and if it's lacking on the board why not ask for a retired member to assist the board in this regard.

Hi planesmaker, all of what you say I agree with.

Thanks for your honesty Jim, I new Turbs was trying to lead this thread into a direction to suit his purposes but couldn't see why, now I do. I've always enjoyed his posts and respected his views but I must say I'm a little bit disappointed.

Chris, you are completely correct and it must be done.

If you saw a strategic plan of how they intend to approach this particular issue then you wouldn't need to think ed knows what to do, you'll know ed knows what to do. We are entitled to no less. We are not so far apart on this turbs, I just feel we should not drop proper processes and procedures because we fill pressured. This is what processes and procedures are for.

and further to the above these guys are unpaid servants, they should not have to carry this burden alone even if it of their own making. GET HELP.

I just reread your post turbs and if the train was at break neck speed then it must have left the station some time ago. Why the bloody hell were we not told. Why put the cfi's in such a position. If you are at a loss and don't know what to do get out of the bloody way for someone who does. It's not rocket science. Call in the big guns, all hands on deck and all that. Four hours with a couple of competent lay people [or a paid consultant] and map out a strategic plan to meet your targets. Don't do what has been done before and bubble along and fail. The problem has only grown big because of incompedence. My advice to Ed and the board is GET HELP.

You might well be right turbs and if Ed had come out and enlightened the members to the situation he would not have had so many unhappy members. No situation can arise that needs such urgent action. I mentioned a day or two but it could have taken an hour or two to comply with the constitution if need be so no excuse will do. What will do is a complete and details account of what transpired and that panic set in and mistakes were made which should have not happened. Since then processes have been put in place along theses lines so I and any future president can't make the same mistake again. BINGO. See that didn't hurt did it.

why is it that people will stray from the facts, and to try to cover that fact up they add emotive arguments to their position. Stick to the facts. Turbs puts forward a good argument for the executive being one but we all know that it doesn't ring true. Why has a small number changed their position and gone into bat for no process and poor governance. This goes against the whole purpose of the feb meeting. Some how we have gone from being horrified of what this president has done to a being a look after Ed club. We need to remind ourselves why we are in this mess in the first place. There has been a couple of comments in this thread that I would like to understand better. 1/ If the board have been working on this safety officer position for 12 months or more and have been frustrated by some members of the board then who are they, why were we not told and what is their reason for opposing it. 2/If caza are asking us to fund a safety officer which is outside of our deed of agreement why were we not told.