David Isaac

Riley. i think the time for a long hard look is coming up fast. I also could not see the great haste to get a flawed constitution passed. It was done in such haste and with such poor preparation that I feel there was some unknown agenda. It got passed because the general membership was only interested in going flying, rather than looking at what was going on.We now have a flawed constitution in my opinion and nothing has been proposed to correct it.

There was plenty of talk about change but that wont happen unless the members do it and it will be successful if it has support. Most here agreed changes should be put forward and I am certain it would get Board support if it is fair and equitable. So unless we do it ... it wont happen.

 

Why not prepare to raise the resolution for next meeting if it missed the boat this time?

That needs to be done and should be done for the evidenced issues at least.

Assuming RAA has in fact done the wrong thing I'd say they have the message clearly - There are members out there who will pick up on every required protocol breach no matter how small or perhaps non critical. Not a bad thing if it is constructive and not used as a reason to beat up on employees on the whole getting good results.

If the rules are right, fair and balanced I think the issues will go away.

 

Meeting at Narromine saw wholehearted support and several statements from members to the effect they are doing a great job.

I believe theye are doing a great job in spite of all the innuendo here.

 

Magazine was discussed at length, basically the $70 subscription covers paper, postage and printing, there is still a 1300 x subscription shortfall for paper version to break even, in loose numbers that's around $80k pa member subsidy to keep it alive or over half the current defecit.

Maybe we should do a joint publication with the SAAA and defray costs.

I will reserve my opinion for my self. I think you can form your opinion as to what that adds up too. Not hard you know.KP.

I rest my case ...

 

 

......... What dose that add up to?KP.

Keith, how could we possibly know? You are the one telling the story, so please enlighten us with a straight answer if that is at all possible and please spare us the innuendo.

 

 

From their facebook page (bad spelling in theirs):-the following information is for public disemination now. ELAAA Pty Ltd Rick PARKS CEO, Myles BRIETKREUTZ Managing Director, Keith PAGE Managing Director and Kevin PATTERSON Managing Director.

Well this will be an interesting ride folks.

Best of good fortune to them. God knows they will need plenty of it. Long live competition for competing services. Not sure how they can offer competing services though.

 

 

The problem is that no robust documented safety case was presented to prove multiple compulsory homebuilt aircraft stage inspections were necessary. RAA's serious accidents do not show this area of our operations is a problem. A cost benefit analysis would also have been a good idea with regard to the new rule changes.No one doubts advisory, non compulsory, regular, competent, peer advice is recommended with any homebuilt project. In the same way that the SAAA and the EAA work with their homebuilt projects. Multiple compulsory inspections, that are likely to come with legal liability problems (over who approved or didn't approve the airworthiness standard of any particular project) is in my view going to be an ongoing problem for RAA.

 

Rod Birrell

Hi Rod,

What you have highlighted is a fundamental test of any new or existing regulation. You must first establish there is a problem then establish the cost of the regulation to offset the risk and then do a cost v benefit (CBA) to establish whether a regulation is justified.

 

This has been a major breakthrough in building regulations and deregulation generally as I eluded to in my previous post on regulatory reform in the building industry.

 

If CBA were applied to the Civil Aviation Act and regulations, much of the CASA bureaucracy would disappear. But for that to happen, the Federal Government will have to step in and hold them accountable for their actions. Most of the Feds haven't got the balls and there will probably be no action until the industry has been destroyed. We are close to that destruction now; at least in the terms of personal bankruptcies in the aviation industry.

 

RAAus surely MUST NOT follow the CASA example. We need to exercise prudent caution in the application of internal policies and regulations. We don't need to 'impress' The CASA with our over exuberance for personal policies that don't stack up under a CBA, otherwise we are as bad as them.

 

 

[GALLERY=media, 3789]plane construction - YouTube by bull posted Sep 30, 2016 at 10:04 PM[/GALLERY]

Great video buddy. The age old proven techniques, real nice to see. Long live timber.

 

 

Where is that one going? Staying In NZ?

 

 

I have copied this post from the other thread 'RAAus General Meeting' as I think there is some confusion on what the central issue is.

 

It seems to me that the organization as a whole is working much more effectively and professionally than it was before, and that most of the complaints in this thread are big on rhetoric and short on fact. The membership spoke loud and clear on the reorganization of the institution. Let's let them get on with it.If anyone has a legitimate complaint, just use the available channels to have addressed and stop the ranting.

I agree the organisation is working effectively under the new Board. I dont believe the issue currently under discussion in this thread has anything to do with whether we should be an 'Inc'; or 'Ltd Co'. The issue has been somewhat confused by two separate threads. The issue at hand is clearly around the fact that a member appearing to follow the provisions within the new constitution attempted to put some resolutions to the AGM/GM in October and was denied that right as a member.This is a significant issue regardless of whether we support the resolutions or not. In any case I doubt they would get support except perhaps the first one; BUT that is NOT the issue here.

 

Seems some would prefer to work strictly legally and get nothing achieved.

Again this is not about stopping achieving anything. I think the new board are doing a great job in their endeavours to sort out the issues. The issue appears to be that either the board has incorrectly denied the resolutions, or we are not interpreting the constitution correctly, but I fear it appears to be the former.

 

Remember the rules in the constitution were set up by the board and voted on by the members. The problems and contradictions were identified by a number of people especially Kasper who said fix the problems before making them legally binding and now we are faced with the problems of not getting them right in the first place. You can't just pick and choose which rules we should follow - That is where we will really end up in trouble.

The simple solution here is to clear up the poorly worded constitution by a resolution to do so. Members on this forum agreed that was necessary, yet have not done that when we had opportunities to put special resolutions forward for this AGM and did NOT. So it needs to be done for the next General Meeting. We need to get the constitution right and no one would deny supporting a resolution that has support to do that. You simply cannot have a constitution that by its confused structure denies members rights to put resolutions of any kind.This isn't about costing legal money at all; so lets clear up our thinking on this and work towards some sensible resolutions to put forward to clean up the constitution and make sure we lodge them correctly which by my reading will need some clarification.

 

 

It seems to me that the organization as a whole is working much more effectively and professionally than it was before, and that most of the complaints in this thread are big on rhetoric and short on fact. The membership spoke loud and clear on the reorganization of the institution. Let's let them get on with it.If anyone has a legitimate complaint, just use the available channels to have addressed and stop the ranting.

I agree the organisation is working effectively under the new Board. I dont believe the issue currently under discussion in this thread has anything to do with whether we should be an 'Inc'; or 'Ltd Co'. The issue has been somewhat confused by two separate threads. The issue at hand is clearly around the fact that a member appearing to follow the provisions within the new constitution attempted to put some resolutions to the AGM/GM in October and was denied that right as a member.This is a significant issue regardless of whether we support the resolutions or not. In any case I doubt they would get support except perhaps the first one; BUT that is NOT the issue here.

 

Seems some would prefer to work strictly legally and get nothing achieved.

Again this is not about stopping achieving anything. I think the new board are doing a great job in their endeavours to sort out the issues. The issue appears to be that either the board has incorrectly denied the resolutions, or we are not interpreting the constitution correctly, but I fear it appears to be the former.

 

Remember the rules in the constitution were set up by the board and voted on by the members. The problems and contradictions were identified by a number of people especially Kasper who said fix the problems before making them legally binding and now we are faced with the problems of not getting them right in the first place. You can't just pick and choose which rules we should follow - That is where we will really end up in trouble.

The simple solution here is to clear up the poorly worded constitution by a resolution to do so. Members on this forum agreed that was necessary, yet have not done that when we had opportunities to put special resolutions forward for this AGM and did NOT. So it needs to be done for the next General Meeting. We need to get the constitution right and no one would deny supporting a resolution that has support to do that. You simply cannot have a constitution that by its confused structure denies members rights to put resolutions of any kind.This isn't about costing legal money at all; so lets clear up our thinking on this and work towards some sensible resolutions to put forward to clean up the constitution and make sure we lodge them correctly which by my reading will need some clarification.

 

 

This statement hits the nail on the head,,because <YOU think that it,s required , it should be made law ah

Bull,

For the benefit of us all would you explain the point you are trying to make about Don's post.

 

 

So Casper so I'm not only one to be denied my rights as a member to be heardBet they deny you the voice from the floor just wait for that to happen Neil

Not sure that would happen in a General Meeting Neil. The chair can control the protocol to a degree, but he can't silence members. An attempt to do that should be met with a 'Point of order' from the floor.

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree Scotty. I am not entirely clear on the matter either as I said.

 

But an Annual General Meeting is still a General Meeting called for a specific purpose to fulfill certain requirements under the Corporations act. There are certain things that must be done at an AGM. The AGM is certainly the one compulsory meeting per year for any Australian corporation.

 

I don't think we use the terms Special General Meeting or Extraordinary General Meeting anymore; they are just General Meetings called for specific purposes where only resolutions with required notice to all members can be voted on.

 

Yes usually the AGM is closed and then it becomes a General Meeting which is no longer the AGM, so it may just be a protocol thing that really has no basis is law for all I know. Certainly there is always another meeting after the AGM obligations have been dealt with. The question is, does it need to be specifically separated?

 

Maybe some legal person on here can advise whether it is that rigid.

 

One thing is for sure, it ain't that clear in our new constitution is it?

 

 

I also agree with you. The pity is it would appear the member in attempting to put the resolution has been blocked rightly or wrongly. It would have been better to allow the resolution to be put and voted on and we all know what the outcome would have been and the matter would have ended for the reasons you have stated.

 

The problem now is that it appears their has been a denial of members rights, compounded by the fact the resolutions were the subject of a matter the member had previously raised.

 

Whereas if the resolutions were to be put the matter would have ended ... But alas ... The matter is now unnecessarily complicated.

 

And now this issue of denying resolutions has put a spoke in the wheel for any other member wishing to raise any legitimate resolution when they believe they are following the process In the constitution.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

 

But we should wait until we hear the official reason for denying the resolution in fairness to the Board.

 

 

Scotty,

 

I think you will find that a General Meeting that is called an Annual General Meeting is just a General Meeting that has certain minimum statutory requirements. These minimum requirements are stated in the constitution. Usually once the formal statutory requirements are met in the AGM it is usually announced as completed and the meeting still continues as a General Meeting, so I dont see any impediment to putting up duly notified resolutions.

 

There is some confusion out there about AGMs, and I may also be confused, but I dont see any error in the calling of the AGM or the call for resolutions. Maybe someone else can explain it better than me.

 

The confusing issue is the date for resolutions being called for prior to 23 September. Prior to 23 September is at least 23 days before the AGM; that date appears to conflict with the requirements for member resolutions found in Clause 27 of the constitution.

 

Any one else care to offer an opinion on this?

 

 

This was the notice to members of the AGM and the invite for resolutions.

 

Not sure where the date of the 23rd came from, certainly doesn't appear to match the constitution requirements.

 

RAAus AGM & Safety Summit

 

The Board of RAAus invites all members to the 2016 Annual General Meeting

 

15 October 2016

 

Adelaide Biplanes Flight School

 

Aldinga Airfield, Colville Road,

 

Aldinga SA 5173

 

The day will begin with an RAAus sponsored safety forum from 2:00PM - 3:30PM.

 

The AGM will be held from 4:00PM - 5:00PM

 

Any member intending to submit a resolution must do so in writing prior to 23 September 2016. Members may appoint proxies to represent them.

 

Both the safety forum and AGM will be broadcast live on the RAAus Member Portal on the day.

 

Following the AGM, RAAus will host a BBQ dinner at 6:00PM where the 2016 Maintainer of the Year awards will be presented. This will be a ticketed event (free BBQ with a cash bar) and seating will be limited to 120 people.

 

 

Although the importance is appreciated, id prefer RAA staff time and money inc legal budget, be spent on other issues

We all would, but does NOT change the fact that all members and directors are legally bound by the terms of the constitution. If a members rights under the constitution are denied we return to the bad old days.

 

 

T

 

General business is not discussed at AGM's . I would be worried if they refused your resolutions at the General Meeting held after the AGM.Cheers Scotty.

True Scotty, but a resolution put my members to an AGM is Not general business.

 

 

Welcome Lance. You will have fun here

 

 

27.1 Where the company has called for resolutions.......Has the company called for resolutions?

Companies normally call for resolutions ahead of any announced general meeting, they clearly have an obligation to do so. If I recall correctly they did for the AGM.

 

 

For the benefit of members; the following is from our new constitution:

 

Members’ resolutions and statements

 

27 Members’ resolutions and statements

 

 

27.1 Where the Company has called for resolutions, any current Member with voting rights may give:

 

(a) written notice to the Company of a resolution they propose to move at the general meeting (Members’

 

resolution), and/or

 

(b) a written request to the Company that the Company must make available to its Members a statement about a proposed resolution or any other matter that may properly be considered at a general meeting (Members’ statement).

 

27.2 A notice of a Members’ resolution must set out the wording of the proposed resolution and be signed by the Members proposing the resolution.

 

27.3 A request to distribute a Members’ statement must be given to the Company at least seven (7) days prior to a general meeting and set out the statement to be distributed and be signed by the Members making the request.

 

27.4 Separate copies of a document setting out the notice or request may be signed by Members if the wording is the same in each copy.

 

27.5 If the Company has been given notice of a Members’ resolution under Clause 27.1(a), the resolution must be considered at the general meeting for which the resolution was called.

 

27.6 This Clause does not limit the right that a Member has to propose a resolution at a general meeting under the Corporations Act.

 

28 Company must give notice of proposed resolution or distribute statement

 

28.1 If the Company has been given a notice or request under Clause 27:

 

(a) in time to give notice of a proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members with a notice of meeting, it must do so at the Company’s cost, or

 

(b) too late to give notice of a proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members with a notice of meeting, then the Members who proposed the resolution or made the request must pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the Company in giving Members notice of the proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement. However, at a general meeting, the Members may pass a resolution that the Company will pay these expenses.

 

28.2 The Company does not need to give notice of a proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members if:

 

(a) it is more than 1,000 words long,

 

(b) the Directors consider it may be defamatory,

 

© Clause 28.1(b) applies, and the Members who proposed the resolution or made the request have not paid the Company enough money to cover the cost of giving notice of the proposed Members’ resolution or a copy of the Members’ statement to Members, or

 

(d) in the case of a proposed Members’ resolution, the resolution does not relate to a matter that may be properly considered at a general meeting or is otherwise not a valid resolution able to be put to the Members.

 

 

Well hardly stopped raining for around 5 months so been in shed a lot, but done 30-40 hrsBeing only legal in private, non LSA aircraft, the number and hour count is likely to be slower.

Had a few little problems but with install and ancillaries not engine itself

where are you located jetjr?

 

 

You can't build empires by working with other empires unless you plan on conquering them!

Gold ...

 

 

On a separate thread I set out three member resolutions and the member statement that had been provided to RAAus for the upcoming AGM.The directors have decided to reject the resolutions and not distribute the member statement. I believe this is in breach of the Constitution but in any event I am going to the AGM in person and at the very least will attempt to raise the resolutions from the floor - but Michael Linke also said that they would decide on the day IF they would accept the resolutions being raised!

 

Not sure on what power they would reject them as they are all directly on the point of the member election which IS within the AGM but in any event I am asking for proxies from members of RAAus for the resolutions.

 

Attached are two files:

 

1. the background to the resolutions; and

 

2. the proxy form itself.

 

As Michael Linke called and confirmed that they have rejected the resolutions and member statement after I drafted the proxy form can I ask that if you send the proxy form direct to RAAus you also email me to let me know. Sorry but I really no longer trust RAAus to actually be honest about what they have received.

 

RAAus have sent me a letter setting out why they have rejected the member resolutions and statement and when it is received I will post here for information.

 

Any questions please PM me through here.

Kirk,

Please post the RAAus letter denying your resolutions as soon as you get it, along with a copy of your correspondence to the Board making the request to lodge the resolutions.

 

 

OK riddle me this- the Constitution allows member resolutions under 27.1

- the Constitution allows that a member statement about those resolution can be provided and that is to be distributed by the Company to all members ahead of the general meeting

 

- the Constitution provided that "A request to distribute a Members’ statement must be given to the Company at least seven (7) days prior to a general meeting and set out the statement to be distributed and be signed by the Members making the request"

 

Now I provided notice to the CEO of:

 

1. three member resolutions; and

 

2. a member statement including a request for it to be provided to all members on the 22nd day before the general meeting

 

so how surprsied should I be as a member to have Michael Linke call me to say that the initial directors at a meeting on Tuesday decided to reject my member resolutions as they had not been made on day 23 before the AGM AND that they would not be distributing the member statement.

 

So there you go members - really looking forward to reading the letter they have sent to me about this rejection of member resolutions.

 

And it was extremely telling that when I said that even if you refuse to distribute the statement (in direct and flagrant disregard of the constitution) I am attending the AGM and will raise them from the floor - and he said fine, the chair will decide IF they can be raised !!!

 

The past board of RAAus may have ignored the old constitution but the behaviours of the current directors is gob smacking.

 

As this thread has lots of branches I am opening a new thread to provide background to the resolutions and provide a proxy form for the resolutions I will be putting at the AGM.

 

The proxy form is very limited and allows both a positive and negative proxy for members - unlike others seeking proxies for votes I am looking to fairly represent the members views either positive or negative - just give some thought to just how the directors are actually working because they appear very happy to completely ignore the few powers and rights reserved from members directly set out in the constitution.

Very concerning Kirk; have you re read and checked the constitution? I will have a good look myself and come back. Probably be a day or two though before I can come back. If you are correct, the actions will have to be challenged.

 

 

The "beefed up" barrels would expand at the same rate as the previous ones as it's the material that determines the rate of expansion. The pistons run hotter and are made of aluminium alloy which even if they were high silicon would still have a rate of expansion greater than the cylinder. Getting the right clearance is the key and not overheating the engine. Slipper type pistons don't get the heat to the cylinder as well as plain skirted ones, so the amount of oil circulating plays a big part. Nev

You are being gentle Nev.