Air Escape

I received two from Wagga last month when I only landed once! And yes, RAAus must have given away my (elected to be non disclosed) details. ............

What a bunch of primadonnas!! Get it together ladies.

Thank mate. I'm laughing. I'll have to look now!

I've resisted the temptation. So I continue to have no idea! Chicago? It's in America, right?

Thanks people. (not gender sure!) A couple of interesting things have come out of this short but informative exchange of posts. Firstly, the issue of appointing a C.E.O. / G.M. From what I'm reading, the whole approach to this next appointment of the most important position in the organisation seems, let's say, flawed. After that let's call it rushed, then lose, then dare I say it suspiciously nepotistic? It reminds me of the time the "survey" regarding the establishment of an airfield in Canberra was circulated. The only problem was that the survey ended about 2 days after everyone finally received their polling form. The net result was described as "nil significant interest to warrant further investigation and expense". Apparently this was the desired outcome by "they" . It could also be called gross stupidity and negligence. It depends on where one stands. This exercise was action ed by the management of the R.A.Aus and implemented by an independent survey company. The aim was to attain an accurate overview of interest in the prospect of establishing a general and sport aviation airfield in Canberra. Never before had I seen such a perfect opportunity of exposing the enormous need for such a venue brought to bear. Upon realization of the need of said airfield, the proof would be taken to the appropriate governing organisations for action. Or so I thought. What I witnessed was utterly infuriating and a tragic example of gross incompetence. We need to be very careful of how and whom we engage for the (apparent) vacant position of C.E.O./G.M. of the R.A.Aus. The next (and last) issue which seems to be begging to be addressed is the issue of the R.A.Aus spending money so members can continue flying. Before I get too involved waxing lyrical over this topic, it's a "no brainer". Management, again, either have their priorities arse about face, or they have no idea what's going on in their realm of responsibilities. What's the good of the Big Ben Pie company if the store forgets to order flour? Is it me? Please tell me it is, and that I'm missing something.

Well said. Yes, it could simply be that. But are we so financially constrained that we, (the R.A.Aus) haven't got the sense to address the issue of audits comprehensively? In other words, why weren't more people engaged to bring a system, and positive result in place? It's my understanding that we're now employing "temps". (consultants) to do the tech job. I'm assuming it's a plural figure here, as our "guy" couldn't do it on his own. Or is it that the consultants are just better at the job and therefore commanding a higher bottom line? Do we still have a C.E.O. ?

I'm sure it's just a rumor. However I can't help wondering why C.A.S.A. is giving the R.A.Aus such a hard time. Especially through ex. R.A.Aus employees. Can't they see that they're having a disruptive and destructive influence on our organisation! My questions are, What's their angle? Why be seemingly so authoritarian? Why expect more than is achievable with the resources available? Is it to, 1. Get the R.A.Aus to get their act together? or 2. Deliberately destabilize the R.A.Aus as a prelude to something more sinister. (eg. Shut down or takover) or. 3. Make room for a pre groomed C.A.S.A. expat. who will steer the R.A. Aus in a more general aviation direction. (more than we are already!) or, 4. Is it just some sort of perverse game of "I've got the stick and watch me use it" (Payback? who knows?) It's obvious the R.A.Aus has more of a workload than it's capable of handling. Probably due to the plethora of rules, regulation, conditions, provisos, sub parragraphs, clauses, references, C.A.O's, A.N.O's, C.A.R.'s, C.A.S.R's and all other beurocratic nonsense that is mercilessly dumped on us recreational flyers with scant regard to the level of our ability to adhere to or much less understand. It's also obvious that, with reference to the preceeding parragraph, that the technical managers job is one for at least a half a dozen employees. Why didn't the R.A.Aus simply ask for more money, people, or resouses, or just say, "you do it" to C.A.S.A. Why has it just imploded with people being sacked, resigning, getting stressed, taking short cuts to get through over-the-top work loads? For a recreational aviation organisation it's getting too damn complicated. We've either got to tone it down. Form a new simple organisation, Let C.A.S.A. do it, or take the R.A.Aus to the next level which would be tantamount to being, "The Civil Aviation Recreational Safety Authority Dept". I wonder what will happen now!