TK58

I agree with Andy that the delay is a one time thing for each aircraft. It took 4 months for the transfer of rego on my aircraft (submitted in October, completed in Feb), but when the rego came due in June it was renewed with a week to spare, presumably because the file had been audited during the transfer and didn't need to be audited again. Having said that, renewing 50 per week is still well short of the number required to keep up, let alone catch up. At this rate the backlog probably is still growing by about 20 per week. It's now 8 months since this all started and we still don't have a system capable of auditing files at a rate that would see the backlog shrinking rather than still growing. Instead it seems there's still quite some way to go before we're out of the woods - likely well past the anniversary of this debacle unless the work rate picks up very soon to considerably more than 70 per week. In relation to tillmanr's offer to volunteer, sometimes it doesn't help to throw more resources at a problem and apparently this is one of those times. However the offer of help should have been promptly acknowledged and graciously declined. At a time when the organisation is getting so much bad press, little courtesies like this are even more important to maintain (or rebuild) positive perceptions.

Whose bright idea was it to put it in the middle of Ausfly? And on a Friday?

Quality Management, Risk Management and Safety Management systems all are necessary in my view. And all are somewhat related. The state of those systems is a strong indicator of organisational capability and maturity in my view. Sadly there is very little evidence that RAAus understands what these systems are, let alone having even rudimentary implementations. There is some focus on the SMS now, although progress still appears to be poor. Quality and Risk are two things I intend to push for some focus on from September.

It is true that Ed id demanding at least 70% of the Board support him by COB tomorrow or he'll quit. I have suggested to the Board that the proper response to that sort of ultimatum is "don't let the door hit you on the a**e on your way out." No one is indispensible and the moment they start thinking they are is the moment they should be removed. I believe Ed is bluffing and won't follow through. Like most bullies it's all hot air. A couple of weeks ago he was demanding 100% support. Since that wasn't forthcoming it's now 70%. Who knows what it'll be next? Sadly, I don't believe it'll be goodbye. 70% support would require no more than 2 dissenters. I doubt that will be achieved with Ed's current approach. Rather than his crash through or crash out, my way or the highway approach, Ed should be talking to his peers on the Board (they are peers, not subordinates) to find a solution everyone can live with. And if he can't bring himself to do that he should go.

There very definitely is a need for open and transparent performance metrics for Board members and, as an incoming Board member, I'd be happy to see each member's voting record be a part of that. This is something I and at least a couple of others intend to pursue, assuming we have the numbers in the new Board come September.

Wonder if the proximity of the federal election is helping us at the moment? Surely the minister (and therefore CASA) would be wary of pissing off 10,000 pilots this close to an election? Might be a factor in CASA's deliberations...

Which is not to say that's not a problem. It definitely is, but it's not necessarily the end of RAAus problem that Keith has claimed. Especially since Ed has already taken the action they're demanding - which is what this thread is about..

OK, spoke to my rep. There is no deadline of tomorrow. CASA has simply put in writing the threats they made at the meeting of a couple of weeks ago.

95.55 is a broad grouping - all RAAus aircraft except 95.10 if I understand correctly. Reg 21.M may well apply to factory built aircraft that come under 95.55, but what about all the 19 reg aircraft. Home built, kit built, etc.?

There's a placard on my plane (RAAus has a photo of it) that says the plane is not required to comply with normal airworthiness standards. Is CASA regulation 21.M applicable to 95.55 aircraft? What about 95.10 aircraft?

My certificate arrived yesterday (13th). Rego was due on the 20th (next Thursday). Took about 2 weeks from the first email telling me what info I needed to provide. I suspect my file may have been in good order due to the transfer that was completed in Feb. That took 4 months but didn't prevent me from flying. Couldn't be happier. Clearly some renewals are going through smoothly.

You haven't answered my question. How do we know where the line is if it's not the line drawn in the Constitution? What's to stop Ed from sacking the GM tomorrow [moderated*], or selling the RAAus office building to SAAA for $100, or taking the $1.5m in the bank and putting it all on red at the casino? Far fetched examples, I know (well, the last two at least), but it's a serious question. What are the limits on the President's authority if it's not the limits in the Constitution? And if he exceeds those limits, what should we do? Saying 'well he had to' doesn't cut it for mine. *Claim removed at request of OP

So if it's ok for Ed to make this decision, which appears to have a financial impact in the tens of thousands of dollars even if the position only lasts until September, where should the line be drawn? What is the limit of the President's authority if it's not the limits defined in the Constitution and the By Laws? And who decides? Expecting the full support of the Board on issues that have been debated and voted on is perfectly reasonable. Expecting the Board to support actions they didn't know about is not. Ed has overstepped the line on this one and needs to know a lot of members and a significant part of the Board are not happy about it. What I'm doing to help (besides standing for the Board) is adding my voice to those protesting the way Ed has gone about this appointment - not just here but directly with Ed and my local Board rep.

My reading of CASR 61 is that it explicitly says an RAAus pilot certificate and any endorsements (e.g. Cross country, tailwheel, etc.) are directly transferrable to RPL provided you have a certificate from a GP that says you met the fitness standard to drive a car and you don't have any reportable conditions. Same limitations as RAAus in terms of where and when you can fly, but more choices in terms of what you can fly. If you can get someone to rent you a 182 (or anything else up to 1,500 kg - early 206 anyone?), an RPL will let you take a group to wherever you might have taken your RAAus 2 seater. This will appeal to some and could be viewed as a threat to RAAus.

A board elected for their ability would be nice but it ain't going to happen. Board elections (all elections?) are popularity contests with, in the case of RAAus, far too few participants. How can you expect quality when so many are elected (and re-elected) unopposed? An "enquiry into effective board composition" has been under way for some time. It's called the Restructure Sub-committee and its primary objective is to examine options to give us a leadership team that can take us forward. Ed would do better to get something concrete happening there rather than taking unilateral action that makes it look like he thinks he owns RAAus and is above the Constitution. He's supposed to be the leader of the Board, not a substitute for it.

Yes, we need a President who can make things happen. But not at the expense of sound governance. For example, it doesn't seem the Board was involved in this decision, yet only the Board can authorise expenditure of this magnitude (likely $20K plus).

I have written to Ed this evening asking those very questions, among others. Has anyone else contacted a Board member about it?

Myles did volunteer. He was the only one to put his hand up when Michael Apps announced at the Easter Board meeting that he couldn't do it anymore.

I have no reason to disagree with your view of Myles, however being a 'decent bloke' is not a sufficient qualification for being on the Board of a multi-million dollar organisation that has significant regulatory obligations. Neither is enthusiasm, passion or willingness to step up and do the work. They're all good to have, but capability and experience also are required. And that's the challenge for RAAus. Board elections are essentially a popularity contest in each region with very few participants despite the large membership. That's no way to get a skilled and capable Board.

That's my point. It doesn't matter so much these days where the rep is based.

I'd certainly agree that RAAus has done a pretty poor job of representing members' interests over the past few years.

That's for the NQ by-election to replace Steve Runciman. Nominations for the general election closed on 31 May. NQ was not part of the general election this year. Each rep is elected for a 2 year term with half the reps up for election each year. NQ is due next year.

I used to live in Townsville and I know how North Queenslanders feel about being governed by Southerners - and I'm sure people from WA feel similarly about being governed from the East. And for things governments do (schools, hospitals, roads, etc.), I tend to agree. But for the things RAAus does, I think the argument is a lot weaker. The rules we operate under are the same across the entire country. And modern communications makes it as easy to talk to someone anywhere in the country as across town. People like the idea of a 'local' rep, but someone in Townsville is hardly local for someone in Mt Isa. And Cairns and Mackay are further apart than any two places in Victoria. Apart from that feel good factor, I can't see it makes a difference where the reps live. Given the strife RAAus is facing at present, I think we should be willing to enlist good talent regardless of where it's found. Home address is hardly a qualification for an effective Board member.

I'm a bit surprised RAAus hasn't made an announcement yet since nominations closed last week. I know I'm standing in SQ. I believe Myles is standing again and John McKeown isn't. I know of another (excellent in my opinion) candidate, but probably shouldn't say who it is until RAAus makes it official. SQ members need to remember there are 2 positions up for election this year so they need to number at least 2 (and preferably all) the squares on the ballot.

If RAAus was communicating openly with the members it shouldn't be necessary to direct them anywhere else.