DWF

Those things you are resting your feet on in the aircraft...... press the right one a bit ...... it's an anti-left turn device.

At the AGM the CEO said he hoped that in the (near?) future RAAus would again provide members with a (free?) hard copy of Sport Pilot. We live in hope. I wonder what the membership fees will be by then. DWF

FYI After about an hour in the circuit in our J120C we taxied back for a break and shut down normally. About 15 minutes later the student taxied out for solo circuits and got a dead cut on the RH mag. Confirmed by L2. Replaced RH coil. All good again. DWF

Thanks for the heads up. It looks like a useful app. Used appropriately, I think it will qualify as a current forecast for in flight and ramp check purposes. DWF

Alternatively you could track almost due north to Yorktown and then Ardrossan and thus stay clear of CTA/R and Restricted areas - but you would be passing through some Danger area(s). Check NOTAMs for R airspace activation. It would also mean crossing about 30nm of water as against 10nm of Backstairs Passage.

G'day Debbie I think I may be the original owner of your Gazelle aircraft. If so, it was registered as VH-DAJ (David And Jen) in about 1995 or 96 - I will have to see if I have any of the old paperwork on it. It was my third Skyfox. The others were VH-DWF, a CA25 Impala tail dragger, and VH-JND (Jen aNd David) a CA25N Gazelle. All three were used for flying training at Jandakot and Pearce/GinGin. I sold DAJ to a pastoral station owner who, I think, re-registered it with RAAus. It was eventually purchased (in a fairly sorry state ) by Preston Boley who refurbished it and sold it to you. You do not have to worry about elevator control cables in the Gazelle as the elevator and aileron controls are by pushrods. It may pay to check the rod ends though. Only the rudder is connected by (2) steel cables - which will probably require replacement soon under the AD. Congratulations on your solo(s). The Gazelle is a great little aircraft. DWF

Actually, moving from an Association to a Company Limited by guarantee increased a member's liability from zero the the now guaranteed $1.00. DWF

DWF said: ↑ One wonders if you or I put up a Special Resolution (to amend the Constitution say) would it receive similar backing and/or promotion from the Board and/or CEO via special newsletters, meetings, etc.DWF Don I agree that you did it the hard way with Special Resolutions. And some were scuttled by a then Board member for, in my view, less than logical reasons, by influencing a significant number of proxy votes. You seem to have missed the point of my post or are practicing a little obfuscation. It is a fact that the RAAus Board and/or CEO use significant Association time and resource to promote the YES case in at least 3 pages of Sport Pilot and 6 electronic newsletters as well as the 'explanatory notes' that accompanied the draft of the constitution. The President and CEO, by their own admission, toured the country promoting (at least part of the time) the YES case. You also (albeit as a 'private' member) heavily promoted the yes case on this forum. Nowhere have I said or implied that the Board (or a Board member) could or would "block" a SR by 'commanding enough votes" but I think you have experienced this situation. The point of my post was - would a Special Resolution proposed by a member, not associated with RAAus board or administration, receive similar promotion/publicity opportunities/support? DWF

"The Board is there to keep an eye on the CEO and RAAus management. The members need to keep an eye on the Board - and ensure the Constitution is set up to facilitate that." Gandalph I hope and believe that the first part is happening. I think members have now largely been sidelined (sidestepped?) by the new constitution. See my post #31 above. I fear that members and the Board will now be overcome by "Constitution Fatigue" and it will be an uphill battle to correct the situation (amend the constitution - again)! DWF

One wonders if you or I put up a Special Resolution (to amend the Constitution say) would it receive similar backing and/or promotion from the Board and/or CEO via special newsletters, meetings, etc. DWF

I am reluctant to be seen as a suspicious, glass-half-empty, grumpy old man but one wonders what is the reason for both the President and CEO making pleas to "trust me/us". I have not problem with the way they are running RAAus at the moment (apart from their, in my view, misguided and spin-doctored Sport Pilot and Special Resolution promotions). However saying "trust me" is a bit like saying "don't think about fluffy pink elephants". You immediately start thinking about fluffy pink elephants - or "why wouldn't I trust you"? Remember the old Russian proverb popularised by US President Ronald Regan, "Доверяй, но проверяй {Doveryai, no proveryai} - trust, but verify. The Board is there to keep an eye on the CEO and RAAus management. The members need to keep an eye on the Board - and ensure the Constitution is set up to facilitate that. DWF

I voted AGAINST the Special Resolution. Not because I don't agree with its' general intent but because IMHO the draft constitution does not look after the interest of Members. (More on this in another post.) I think the SR got such a large support was because it was heavily promoted by (most or at least the most vocal) Board members PLUS the CEO via the RAAus 'Newsletters'. It was also my impression during the campaign that it was a Board resolution and appeared to be promoted as such. Apparently (as explained during the General Meeting) it was actually a resolution of 2 Members (who happen to be members of the Board). Maybe some split hairs here? If it was not a Board resolution it was a resolution supported by the Board as it is one of the objectives of the Strategic Plan which the board passed as its' last meeting. I wonder how many members have actually read the draft constitution and understand its' implications. I feel that to a large extent it sidelines members and their requirements, in the interest of expediency by placing almost total control in the hands of the Directors who can: Choose (between 3 and 7) how many Directors there will be; Determine the types/classes of membership and what rights each class will (or wont) have; Determine the contents of the Members' Charter - If the charter has the same force as the constitution, why not include it in the constitution so it can only be changed by a Special Resolution of MEMBERS?; Determine the Disciplinary policy and procedures - If these are binding on members why can they be changed at the whim of the Directors (and not the Members)? etc I feel/fear that there will now be a protracted process (fight?) now to get the constitution and its appendages more correct and acceptable to members. We need to get the constitution as near to right as we can. It is virtually the ONLY thing that, in practical term, defend/protect members rights. We have seen in the recent past what happens when the wheels fall off the governance trolley. Anyone up to the challenge? DWF

If you trained under the old GFPT syllabus or more recently RPL you were deemed competent to carry passengers as soon as you passed the flight test. Are RAAus trained pilots any less competent than those GFPT/RPL trained pilots? Not at my flight school and I hope not at any other RAAus flight school. That said, I do not think it is a bad idea for a newly minted pilot to get a few hours solo experience to consolidate before having to worry about the distraction of carrying a passenger. DWF

Firstly, I agree with the general direction and philosophy of the current Board and what they are trying to achieve. The current constitution needs updating; I am comfortable with the move to a Limited company and I applaud the reduction in the number of Board members and the changes to procedure and voting system for Directors. The problem I have is with the details in the proposed constitution and its appendages (some of which we have not yet seen). Despite the claims that members have been consulted I do not think it has been done widely enough or for long enough as there are still IMHO big holes in it - especially with the Objects and with the powers of the Directors (as expressed in many of the clauses). See my detailed comments at post 184. I think the process has been pushed too quickly and the proposed constitution, and especially its appendages, is not yet at an acceptable standard. The Executive (and Board to a lesser extent) have put a lot of time and effort into getting these changes through. I do not think that if the Special Resolution does not pass on 14 May that they will give up. I expect (and hope) that if the NO vote prevails this time there will be more consultation and amendments and a revised document and SR will be presented to members for a vote - probably at the AGM in October 16. If the YES vote prevails on 14 May then I foresee several years of fiddling with the constitution to get it near right and much waste of time and effort - or, if apathy strikes, we will be left with a dodgy constitution open to manipulation (despite the protests of Don and others to the contrary) by disreputable directors should that situation arise. My suggestion is to vote NO now. Get the constitution (and the Member's Charter and Disciplinary Rights and Procedures) up to scratch. Then vote in a new constitution and system that is going to work for us, the members, in the long term. DWF

Another quote which may give cheer (or solace) to some: "If no one is pissed-off with you then you are dead but just haven't figured it out yet." Tom Peters

I recognise the need to amend or replace the current RAAus constitution, am comfortable with a change from Incorporated Association to Company limited by guarantee (although I think arguments put forward for it are vastly overrated) and applaud the reduction in number of directors and changes to nomination and voting procedures. The devil, however, is in the detail. I think the draft constitution that has been presented for voting at the next General Meeting is inadequate in a number of respects as listed in my comments and suggestions below. I feel it will be better to get the constitution right before putting it to the vote rather than trying to change it once the change in structure has been implemented. Unless I can be convinced otherwise in the mean time I will be voting NO on the resolution and encouraging others to do likewise. My main areas of concern are: Clauses 6 “Objects”, Clause 12 “Classes of Membership”, Clause 14 “Membership Approval”, Clause 17 “Dispute Resolution”, and Clause 54 “Member’s Charter” and the charter itself. The above is the introduction to the comments and suggestions regarding the draft constitution that I am sending to the President and CEO. The document (6 pages) is attached if you wish to read it. DWF RAAus draft Constitution comments.docx RAAus draft Constitution comments.docx RAAus draft Constitution comments.docx

But Special Resolution 5 says "... Those directors shall cause an election to be called as soon as is practical, and in any case no longer than six months after the end of the 2015/16 financial year, to bring the board size to no less than five members; ...." This, to me, means that the first election must be held before 31 Dec 2016 (Six months after 30 June 2016). The election does not have to be held at an AGM. If the resolution passes I would expect to see an election around Oct 2016. DWF

Here is a quotation I have just come across which may be of interest to those favoring the YES vote. They were having problems with change > 500 years ago! But it (reform) does happen if you keep at it - eventually. "It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it." Nicolo Machiavelli , (1469 - 1527)

And monitor and use CTAF or Area Freq as appropriate if you are operating at or below 3000' and less than 1000' vertically from cloud (etc).

As I read the new constitution and Special Resolution (sub-resolution 5) - if the Special Resolution is passed then initially there will be 3 Directors, the current President, Secretary and Treasurer. These Directors will be required to call an election to be held by no later than the end of December 2016 and at least one of the 3 must retire (but would be eligible to renominate). It would appear that 2 of the above 3 will continue on the Board for another year (not a bad idea IMHO to ensure continuity and preserve some corporate memory) and then have to retire as they would be the 2 longest serving Board members (Clause 36.1(b)). The SR requires that the number of Board members be no less than 5 but the new constitution says there can be up to 7 Directors. Who decides how many Directors to have and how the decision will be made? DWF

Don I do NOT agree that the special resolution in any way fixes the lack of inclusion of a provision for by-laws in the draft constitution. It says in part "...: until altered or varied in accordance with the replacement constitution, the by-laws of the organisation shall apply "once the necessary changes have been made" (mutatis mutandis). It looks like an afterthought tacked on in a hurry to try to fix (another) big hole in the draft constitution. It still does not really give any authority to by-laws or indicate how they are made or apply, what authority they have or who can make them. The actual content of any or all of the current by-laws is not the issue here. The issue is that by-laws are not provided for in the draft constitution. ********************* I recognise the need to amend or replace the current RAAus constitution, am comfortable with a change from Incorporated Association to Company limited by guarantee (although I think arguments put forward for it are vastly overrated) and applaud the reduction in number of directors and changes to nomination and voting procedures. The devil, however, is in the detail. I think the draft constitution that has been presented for voting at the next General Meeting is inadequate in a number of respects. I feel it will be better to get the constitution right before putting it to the vote rather than trying to change it once the change in structure has been implemented. Unless I can be convinced otherwise in the mean time I will be voting NO on the resolution and encouraging others to do likewise. My main areas of concern are: Clauses 6 “Objects”, Clause 12 “Classes of Membership”, Clause 14 “Membership Approval”, Clause 17 “Dispute Resolution”, and Clause 54 “Member’s Charter” and the charter itself. (I have a little list of relatively minor corrections as well.) DWF

Kasper I agree that there are still quite a few clauses in the new constitution that need correcting, rewording or replacing. However, I think you are trying to split hairs with your argument re 57.1 57.1(b) does not specify when or how a member should/can nominate to receive notices by email. If such agreement is in place before the change-over what is the problem in accepting it - like the rest of the info in the Membership Register? DWF

The current constitution allows notices to be sent by email. The simple solution for RAAus would be to send and email notice to members asking them to agree to receive future notices by email. The email address of those members agreeing to receive notices by email would then be on the Membership Register when the new company was registered. Those members not agreeing to receive email notices would (following the registration and approval of the new constitution) have to be sent notices by snail mail. (As is pretty much the case now.) DWF

Don There is no provision for By-laws in the draft constitution. How can by-laws be adopted, altered or varied "in accordance with the replacement constitution" if there is no provision for this (the making and authority of by-laws) in the replacement constitution? This is just one of the holes I (and others) see in the draft constitution. (I am working on a list of things I would like to see amended in the draft.) I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that it would be preferable to get it a bit better sorted out before voting on it. DWF

Entries/amendments should be date stamped so we know how current the info is. DWF