gandalph

To avoid any claims of vote stacking by proxies,

It's too late for that Turbs. That claim has already been published here (ref: post 284).

Not necessarily; it would depend on what they were told, and the circumstances.

It could also depend on what they found out and decided for themselves as competent adults. I think we need to give ALL those who voted credit for some level of intelligence and perhaps accept that they made their OWN decision as to how they would vote. I didn't see many members being bussed to the meeting and I certainly wasn't canvassed, other than through the candidates statements in the magazine. Was I one of the few who escaped the attention of the headhunters?

 

 

I wonder how many of the 9,000 actually knew what they were voting for or against.

Just to clarify Turbs - there weren' t 9000 votes cast. The majority of members of the RAA didn't vote either for or against anything. The majority of members weren't bothered to vote at all.

 

 

We have been hoodwinked by people headhunted to bring RAA into what CASA want us to be.

Bill, are you saying that the Board was headhunted (presumably by CASA)? If that is your proposition, I wonder if Frank Marriott would agree with the suggestion that he was headhunted. I doubt that he would, I think Frank is has too much integrity to have allowed that to happen. The logical implication of your suggestion is that the election result was manipulated by the headhunters. Really?

 

We have no effective voice anymore to have input into our future all engineered by Monke and Co.

I have to disagree with you there Bill. We (meaning members of the RAA) DO have an effective voice and input into our future. It's called an election. All the members have to do is get off their backsides and vote!

 

 

Bruce, You can cut the strip to pretty much any length you want. On ours the strip was cut just slightly shorter than the depth of the tank.

 

 

Bruce, we are trialing a strip of LED lights similar to:

 

Cool White 5050 Led Strip Lights 300 LEDs Waterproof Flexible DC 12V + DIMMER | eBay

 

The lights have an adhesive strip on their back, we glued them into a length of very light gauge polished stainless which is then fixed to the back surface of the tank with some super strong double sided scotch tape. A Press button on the central spine between the seats lights the strip and shows the tank level very well. Haven't tried it in flight yet but dummy runs in even bright sun seem to suggest that it will be a go-er.

 

If I recall correctly Belite also has a neat little in- tank capacitive sender that can be hooked to one of their bar graph style displays LED Instruments - Fuel Gauges - Belite Aircraft

 

 

Well I think the total who voted may have been around 1.5% of the 9000 members, but we were talking about performance in line with the heading of this thread.

I doesn't matter if it was 0.25% who voted, they were the ones who CHOSE TO VOTE. Do we now choose to believe that we know the wishes of the non voters? I'm all for reasoned and rational dissent but I struggle to append those labels to some (and I stress some) of the posts published here. I wonder if those who have concerns about what they see as the adverse direction the current Board is taking the RAA have taken the time voice those concerns to their ELECTED representatives or do they chose simply to use this social media channel to voice their concerns. (edited..mod)

It is a common cry that Governments are elected by the people but are directed by the media. Is that what we are trying to do here?

 

This is a great forum for social interaction and learning from the experience of others but do we really expect it to be an effective tool for change?

 

 

Remember the plan was 5 (with a max of 7) we only got 7 because of the "outgoing" board. If you think you know everything then you don't want other opinions to which may not fit into your perfect plan (even if it only in your own mind). We have what we deserve.

Another way to view it is that we have what the majority of those who got off their behinds and cast their vote, voted for. Until voting in RAA elections becomes compulsory that's how the views of the RAA electorate will be reflected. Whether the results of that election reflect the view of the majority of members won't ever be settled to every ones satisfaction, however, it is the view of the majority of those that voted. That's a simple form of democracy. If you don't like the result, either stand for election or rally enough support to put forward candidates that reflect your views.

There is another embryo organisation being set up that claims it will do better than the RAA. So wouldn't it make sense for those who take the time and effort to point out here the shortcomings of the RAA, if they used some of that time and effort to give some concrete support to the fledgling organisation to help get it up and running?

 

 

Sorry mate my mistake ,dislecksia has set in caused by brain pain about the whole subject ,and I was reading your deleted posts and thinking you had deleted them ,,,my humble apologies and I hope we can continue to have ""robust and energetic discussions'' in the future ,,,Scott

No apology needed Bull. It was an honest mistake but I have to say that I am laughing my head off that you thought I might be a moderator. I think Ian would rather sell his soul to the devil before he'd let me be a Mod.

 

 

Your profile and comments are there to see deleting my comments

Sorry Bull, but I still don't understand what you mean by that.

 

 

Sorry but don't those people that have been attacking keith have to abide by the same rules that you have used to delete my ''comments and disagreements to some''the operative word that you have used being disagree!!!

Bull, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. Are you saying I had your comments deleted? I think you're on the wrong track there

 

 

And for clarification: I was referring to the Australian community in general, not the Rec Flying forum community in particular. I wouldn't want to be accused of criticising Site Admin or the Mod(s).

 

(then specify, cheap shots not appreciated....robust discussion encouraged but play the topic sensibly not the man....mod)

 

 

Does anyone from among the people who've been attacking Keith

Turbs! A bit hyperbolic there my old sparring mate! I know that we are becoming an increasingly litigious society but surely the Australian way allows someone to disagree with another's viewpoint or opinion (sometimes with a degree or robustness and vigour that might be frowned on in other societies) without being accused of "attacking" someone?

Have I misjudged this community, or is free speech not what it one was?

 

(free speech is to be encouraged, but play the topic not the man and leave snide remarks and innuendo out of it....mod) (hopefully not the "bush lawyers" in the ambiguous post earlier.) Play fair people.)

 

 

[deleted...keep off the personal attacks...mod

 

 

I will not answer or expand on those points on a public forum. I have said, too much already.If ever I am put before a court of law I will be able answer and expand on all, the information is not flimsy. If ever that happens that day I will not be operating with riddles, winks, nudges - will be facts.

Just imagine if some of those facts got on this forum the mind boggles as to where that information will end up and of course the twisting.

 

As Turbo said it is mostly out there only needs researching.

 

I resent the remark "silence is the smarter option" there are those here who can put the jig saw together without having it all spelt out to them.

 

(I have facts and they are not being shared on an open forum)

 

KP.

Classic Keith!

If what you say is true, would you not be wiser to keep your powder dry?

 

It could be seen by some that all you ARE willing to share here is innuendo. By doing that you risk damaging your credibility, at least in this forum.

 

 

This thread seems to have drifted somewhat off topic into a more interesting and relevant area of discussion. Worth a separate thread in my opinion Can the Mods help with that?

 

 

Hi Keith. Sorry to hear about your mind being boggled. That can be troublesome. Perhaps a cup of tea, a bex and a good lie down might help?

 

Thanks for your reading advice, I have re-read those posts and my understanding of your opinion is clear, as is my understanding of your agenda.

 

Good luck with the de-boggling though!

 

 

Thanks Sue. Good solid information there backed up by research. When they create a position of RAAus archivist you'll get my vote. Thanks again

 

 

I am interested as to which is the correct version.. One can not assume which version is correct. "overwhelming" :- or is there a silent group who has given up caring?KP

I'm not sure I understand your comment Keith. What do you mean when talk about a "correct version"? Correct version of what? I copied and pasted the section in quotation marks in post # 69 from the Official RAA newsletter. The only thing I changed was the bold font for the numbers. Is that why you gave that post a caution?

 

 

Caution Keith? Have I offended you?

 

 

Perhaps he was. Who can be sure?

 

 

There you go FT. I found the numbers in the RAA newsletter dated 15 May 2015. I've put the numbers in bold font so it's easier for you to see the dramatic change in voting numbers pre and post incorporation.

 

"On Saturday 14 May 2016, RAAus achieved a significant milestone in its history. The members overwhelmingly supported an initiative to restructure the organisation to reinforce the hard work of the board and the management team over the past three years. Some

 

928

 

votes were cast with a strong majority of 87 per cent supporting the change.

 

The number of votes cast is a record in a poll for RAAus and is a clear indication of both the engagement and support of our membership for change."

 

 

True Turbs, But that scenario is predicated on the first word of your 2nd paragraph.

 

If.

 

 

1st time Ive read this thread - not an overly interesting subject ...... what !Figured the conversation would be about where its at !

 

......... Sex, politics and religion - tsk tsk tsk0

Oh! Well said, that man! Well said!

 

 

ASre there postmarks nowadays. The mail I receive has no marks sometimes.

Good point Yenn. Most of the snail mail I receive has a post mark/date stamp but very occasionally there's one without. I assume (now there's a dangerous word to use here) that the scrutineers will have a process to deal with that. If I was a scrutineer I would exclude any postal votes received after the closing date if it didnt have a validating post mark.

If I recall, the votes at the last general meeting were collected and counted by a solicitors engaged for that purpose. If that's how it's being handled this time I'd hope they would have a process that complies with general principles in these matters.