DonRamsay

Frank if you had ever had to work with a Board of 13 you would appreciate how inefficient that is. If each Board Member speaks for just 10 minutes on a given topic then 130 minutes or 2 hours and 10 minutes has just gone by. And that's just for one topic. And 1o minutes is reasonably brief.The expense of shipping 13 Board members around the country just twice per annum is greater than the benefit of doing that. The worst part is we end up with not the best talent available. For example we had two excellent candidates in South Australia at the last election but only one could be elected. And, only people in South Australia region could vote. We had the odd situation that we had no candidate from Victoria and a person from NSW was nominated and elected, unopposed to the Board. It is not very clever to have as many Board members as there are employed staff. With a smaller Board there is no need for a Board Executive and all Board decisions will be made on the consensus of the entire Boars. Directors under the Association model are supervised by the state based Office of Registry Services. We were unable to get any reaction from the ORS back in the days when the Board was happy to ignore the Constitution and operated at a poor level of Governance. As a Director of a company supervised directly by the powerful Australian Securities and Investments Commission, you need to tread very carefully to avoid the wrath of ASIC invoking the severe power granted to it by the Corporations Law. Also, Directors of the new Company will not be able to operate in cruise control as happened a lot over the last 10 years or so with calamitous results. Directors of the new Company will need to be participating fully in the affairs of RAAus keeping themselves fully informed and performing the analysis and getting answers to questions from the management. If we left the old structure in place it would just be a matter of time before RAAus drifted back into its bad old ways and all the effort of the reformers over the last 5+ years would have been wasted and we would be back into having aircraft grounded by CASA for months or years on end.

Personally, I see the intent of the Eureka Project, to petition politicians to wind back CASA's attempt to regulate everything and take 25+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars and finish up with regulations even less intelligible than the Tax legislation, is admirable. The strategy is broadly good but their tactics have been lacking. There is no point going to the politicians representing 2,500 aviators when they could go with the backing of all non commercial pilots in the tens of thousands. To have not sought the support of Australia's largest pilot organisation (RAAus) demonstrates either shallow thinking or some odd form of arrogance. NZ was prudent to review and then entirely revise their approach to regulation. In doing so, they have saved vast sums of pilots and taxpayers money and achieved vastly more progress in a fraction of the time. It was a bold decision but the payoff has been very substantial. The arrogance that has the (desirable) ADS-B being forced in years before the USA shows just how commercially ignorant CASA is and how much of a transformation is desperately needed. The RPL continues to be a failure because of the "Claytons" drivers licence medical. Until that is fixed it will never be successful. We as pilots can not get into a game that says giving GA pilots access to a drivers licence medical would harm RAAus. We all must fight for the removal of unjustifiable restrictions imposed on us by CASA. Any restriction current or proposed must have a credible risk analysis supporting the regulation. Regulation in Australia, the world for that matter, must move forward from post WWII thinking and adopt a philosophy that it is up to the PIC to conduct safe aviation. Simple as that. Bodies like CASA must evolve into an organisation that supports safe aviation by providing guidance and education and training. The standard approach has to move to CAAP style advice instead of the CAOs and CASRs and the abhorrent "strict liability" punishments. A pilot must be allowed the opportunity to prove that their conduct of a flight reasonably addressed perceivable risks. I can dream.

My personal view, not that of RAAus, is that an approach like this to the Federal Government is highly warranted abd if anything long overdue. However, Rather than go one out, AOPA might have marshalled all the support available for a well argued case. If AOPA wanted support from RAAus would it not have been prudent to seek the support before publishing? With just a few relatively minor (to AOPA) changes, support from all aviation bodies could have been available from day 1.

Jim, My poor choice of words saying the Directors do any election admin. The Company Secretary runs the election process with no input from the Directors of the day. The Directors' role is well in advance of any election and consists of approving a set of By-Laws that are consistent with the Constitution to govern the conduct of the election. This is exactly the same as now. The Directors have a set of By-Laws and the Public Officer (= Company Secretary) conducts the election process from calling for nominations to announcing the winners and runner-ups. As I wrote above this is the same situation as now. And I think you will find that most corporations have Board approved By-Laws. Yes to both of those points and we will all get to see that well in advance of being asked to vote on their adoption. The Members' Charter specifically bars the Board from reducing Members' rights in any way. It is regrettable that the draft Members' Charter has not been distributed yet but you should see it quite soon. We all need to cut the Office (and the Exec ) a bit of slack at the moment as the current workload is insane. The finishing touches are going on to a new edition of the Tech Manual and the Ops Manual, a new Constitution and the Members' Charter and submissions to CASA for increased MTOW and access to CTA plus quarterly financial analysis and Financial Plan preparation.

Oh, what I'd give to see the CFMEU mugged - the ever virtuous untouchables who run the ALP with an iron fist and big bucks that were obtained totally above board and beyond reproach. ASIC has Royal Commision like powers but even a Royal Commission doesn't seem to be able to clean up the CFMEU. And the banks have to contend with ASIC and APRA but we need a Royal Commission as well? That's just class warfare payback.

Jim, I clearly can have no argument with all the above legal points you make. I don't know where it comes from but there seems to be this impression that the Constitution gives the Board the right to can say who can be a Director and who can't. That is simply not the case. Clause 34 sets the requirements and does not give the Board any discretion in the matter. The requirements to be a director of RAAus are explicitly set out in Clause 34 and none are contrary to the Act and none require particular experience or skills. It is a prerequisite to be a Member to be a director of RAAus Ltd. To which Clauses are you referring to here? As is the case presently and in the proposed Constitution. Democracy is the worst form of government you can have . . . . except for every other form. W S Churchill. Democracy gave us Ronald Reagan and G H W Bush but that's a cost of doing business. We've had some Board members I wouldn't feed but they were popularly elected. Under the proposed Constitution the directors will be popularly elected. The process for the election will be, as it is now, encased in By-Laws approved by the Board. No change. The only "new" thing relates to ensuring the voting Members are given vital information about the skills and experience of the candidates. It is then, as you say, up to the voters "common sense" to decide who will serve RAAus the best. The Directors will have no role, at any stage of the election process. The rules for the process will be crystal clear and it will be the Public Officer / Company Secretary who runs the election on the rules proscribed in the By-Laws - just as happens now. Nowhere in the proposed Constitution does it require any skills or experience as a prerequisite to be a candidate or to be elected. Don

Kasper, Kasper, Kasper, I had been doing my best not to respond to a person who thinks everyone's view but their own are abnormal due to a hereditary or acquired brain defect. But, let me swallow my pride and respond to you anyhow. We tried that and look where we ended up - within an inch of being wound up. But what skills and experience are relevant? Well, it has a lot to do with the size of the organisation you are looking at. Let's start with the Management Committee of an aero club with perhaps 40 members and I would agree with your description of what's required to be on the management committee. Mind you, one accountant on the Committee to look after the books or do the audit can be useful and a lawyer to help us with club riles and leases, etc. The Club management Committee I sit on has both and is thus well resourced. Somehow we still manage to also be pilots, maintainers and have a modicum of vision. Now, let's go to the other end of the spectrum and look at what you'd need in terms of the "skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company" for a director of a Fortune 500 company, say, American Airlines (the world's largest Airline). Just a bunch of "flyers and visionaries"? Nobody needed with corporate, legal, engineering or finance skills on the Board? I don't think even you would claim that would be appropriate and I'm certain that Wall Street and American Airlines' bankers would expect the directors to have the "skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company". OK, so where do I see RAAus fitting on this spectrum? A fair way up from a 40 member aero club and a long way below American Airlines. You draw the line wherever you like and I promise I won't aggressively and disrespectfully accuse you of being "stark bonkers". After all, your view is derived from your own intellectual capacity, analytical ability and life experiences including skills and experience acquired in management. And my view is based on guess what? - the exact same things. It is not reasonable for one person to dismiss out of hand another persons' opinion as "stark bonkers" - unless of course you happen to have psychiatric qualifications that you haven't made us aware of and are capable of telepathic diagnosis of psychoses. Again, that's your view. I would be appalled if you really thought having any management capability in a top management role was a drawback or that voting members should be denied this information because they might favour the enthusiastic skilled and experienced candidate over the just enthusiastic but without skills and experience. The candidate's declaration is in no way a "de facto selection criteria [sic]". All RAAus asks is that candidates state what it is that they have done before that will fit them out for a job as a director. It is up to the Members to decide, as they do now, what criteria they will use in choosing between candidates. All the Constitution does is impose on Directors a duty to ensure that Members are provided with useful information by candidates so voting members can make an informed choice. If the voting members are of your persuasion Kasper, and value enthusiasm over skills, experience and enthusiasm, then they will vote that way but if they want somebody in charge who understands their obligations as a director and has the skills and experience to be effective at that level then they will appreciate having been given that information about each candidate. RAAus was formed as an incorporated association otherwise described as a body corporate or simply a corporation. How is having skills and experience in business management "nothing to do with the purpose of the association"? How is it a handicap to doing a the best job at Director level? How does being able to read a balance sheet and analyse and criticise a budget not form part of the core skills needed to sit at the top level of management of an enterprise like RAAus? How does a background in corporate risk management disqualify somebody from overseeing the risk profile of a body like RAAus that governs a risk prevalent activity? On the contrary, it is relatively expensive and not necessary for anyone who has had that experience. It also takes up the limited time of part-time, volunteer directors that could be otherwise devoted to the business and purpose of RAAus. Possessing "skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company" does not make one incapable of flying nor of having vision. After all, only Members can be Directors of RAAus and last time I looked all Members were enthusiastic, amateur pilots and maintainers. Why should an enthusiast pilot with an MBA be less competent at Board level than an enthusiast pilot who has no management experience? Incidentally, there is no ban on saying in your election statement how enthusiastic and what great vision you have for the future of RAAus. Don

Col, As per the current Constitution, the Board votes in By-Laws on the basis of a motion for a Board Resolution moved and seconded in a Board Meeting. The By-Laws must be on be matters allowed by, and not in conflict with, the Constitution. Same goes for the Members Charter. The role of the hoi poloi is the same under the new Constitution as it is now - they elect the people who make the By-Laws. The difference is that under the new Constitution, Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice apply and the Directors have a severe task master (ASIC) for any Director who does not act in good faith and for the benefit of all members. Don

The Directors are not given that power by the new Constitution. They cannot choose who gets to stand for election as long as they meet the requirements of Clause 34.3, "a person who is eligible for election as a Director of the Company." and they comply with the election process (Clause 34.5). You may be thinking that the Directors get the power to exclude anyone for any reason because of Clause 34.5: "The Directors shall ensure that the process of calling for nominations and the election of Directors shall take account of the skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company." but that would be an incorrect reading. The key words are "the process . . . shall take account of ". It does not give the Directors carte blanche to write a process to exclude anybody that they don't like. The (as yet unreleased) Members' Charter requires Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice and, in my view, would prohibit unreasonable discrimination. What Clause 34.5 is about is ensuring the election process takes account of skills and experience of the candidate. It does not give the Directors the right to exclude somebody because they lack a PhD in Corporations Law. Consider a typical election statement that you'd have seen lots of over the years which go along the line of "I'm an aviation enthusiast and I fly a J230. I have been a member of the AUF/RAAus for more than 20 years. My aim is to work hard to implement some innovative ideas that will greatly benefit members. etc." Under Clause 34.5, the Directors would be obliged to send that statement back to its author and ask for the statement to be revised to include details of "the skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company". Under Clause 34.5, the Directors are obliged to ensure that the statement from the candidate addresses these matters as they would have been advised when the Directors invited candidates to be nominated. A potential candidate would disqualify himself/herself if they refused to follow the election process. The statement in that example would have been completely acceptable under the election process if it also included the comment "I have no previous experience in senior management of a small/medium sized corporation nor as a director of a company, nor have I successfully completed any corporations management education/training courses." The Members are entitled to know that rather than just how many different types of aircraft they've flown or that in private life they are a highly skilled geologist. The point is that members in voting must have been clearly informed of the candidate's "skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company" if the members are to make an informed decision when casting their vote. To reiterate, the Board are required to have a process for electing Directors but they are not entitled to refuse to accept a candidate that has been nominated by two members and they conform with the Constitution. There is no member who could claim to be unreasonably refused candidacy if all they have to do is make an accurate declaration of their suitability to be a Director under the Corporations Act. Under the Members' Charter the words "Procedural Fairness" and "Natural Justice"are included. You should see the Members' Charter and the next draft of the Constitution by Friday of this week. Fair enough? Don

Both of those "programs" were introduced before he took the reins. Unscrambling the Jabiru omelet is going to take some very clever legal brains. And you can add the "wisdom" of the rollout of ADSB years before the USA to the list of imponderables. Skidmore has been very upfront since the day he arrived and has been a breath of fresh air. His 10 point list for assessing CASA actions is unprecedented and should guarantee major CASA blunders will not happen on his watch.

Shags, The incorporated association model served us very poorly during the troubles that lead to the members calling of the extraordinary General Meeting in 2013. Under that model, there is insufficient supervision of Directors by, in the case of the ACT, the Office of Registry Services. Despite numerous formal complaints about the ultra vires activities of the then Board and the failure of the then Board to even do Budgets or provide meaningful financial statements to the Members. the ORS chose to do zip. They were happy to suggest that we fix the problem ourselves via the ballot box. ASIC were not interested even though we were a registered body because they had bigger fish to fry and they were happy to leave "incorporate clubs" to the ORS. I can't see ASIC putting up with that sort of nonsense from a company that they have exclusive responsibility to supervise. The big plus for the members of having RAAus supervised by ASIC is the unlikelihood that a Director would coast along and not make themselves fully aware of matters of the Company or deliberately breach the Constitution thinking they could get away with it as happened under the incorporated associations model. Members should be very pleased with the higher level of supervision imposed on directors a company and the severe (uninsurable) penalties that can be applied to a director who breaches their fiduciary duty, who does not at all times act with good faith and in the best interest of all members or fails to properly manage the affairs of the Company. There is a saving cost and administration because RAAus currently has to supply info to both ASIC and the ORS - in different formats. Moving incorporation to another state, especially to NSW (Queanbeyan) would have been fairly easy but would not have avoided the double reporting nor increased the pressure on directors to be on the ball and provide exemplary good governance. And yes, you may have missed this in earlier posts but worth repeating.

Sorry KP, it's probably just me being thick but I didn't understand a single word of that. Anyone assist me?

I've done the calculations for my Sling in every balance situation - within POH limits. That is, as long as you don't exceed 600kg total and you don't exceed the 35kg baggage and you have at least the minimum weight pilot (never my problem) you can't exceed POH acceptable balance range. Did the same calcs for a Tecnam Sierra with the same result. My recommendation is that you should do those calcs for the plane you fly and understand the results. Biggest risk comes when somebody changes the original config - not a problem with an LSA or type cert factory built - or doesn't respect the laws of physics as illustrated in the POH.

The Board approves the Charter and the Members elect the Board. It is not a lightning fast reaction but it is inevitable if the Directors stuff it up. Key words like Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness are not just pretty words. And even if they were taken out of the Charter by a rogue Board, they would be taken as implied by any court.

Having served in the military myself I understand your comment. From my brief exposure to Mr Skidmore I believe he is exceptional. If anyone could fix CASA he could but it is the most difficult job in Australia.

Like the Victorian Act, the NSW version of Incorporated Associations is also better than the ACT legislation and would be easy to relocate to NSW (Queanbeyan). However, after much consultation we arrived at the Company limited by guarantee as the best form of incorporation for a national body like RAAus. In assembling the draft we've had considerable assistance from a very senior aviation lawyer and it is his recommendations, like yours, that we have a Corporations Law specialist lawyer do a close check of the final draft. I agree it is not hard to find an incompetent lawyer. In my inexpert view RAAus had such a firm on retainer for some years. As you may know I got pretty familiar with the Special Resolution process over the last few years, forcing through changes to the old Constitution to get more power to the members and tighten the control of the Board. In the end, in some things, I went too far. A good example was forcing the Board to hold a second General Meeting each year. That was good but, not trusting the then Board, I went a bit too far and dictated to that it had to be held at NATFLY, commencing at 11 a.m. on the Saturday. I later put a further amendment giving timing of the meeting to the Board. Just as well as we haven't done NATFLY for a couple of years.

Frank, Thanks for this well written post clarifying your concerns about the new Constitution. I hope I can answer them to your satisfaction. What you are concerned about is mathematically possible and was just as possible on a 13 person Board and, as you say, did happen prior to 2013. The big difference is that the current Constitution is overviewed by the ACT's Office of Registry Services (ORS) whereas under our new form of incorporation we will come under the direct supervision of the powerful Australian Securities and Investments Commission (the other ASIC). The ORS proved to be, in my view, a toothless tiger when called on to reign in the old Board's excesses. Despite numerous formal written complaints about the old Board acting in breach of our Constitution, the ORS chose to do nothing. That was why we had to go to the extraordinary lengths of a General Meeting called by the members. That action by the members was opposed by the Board as hard as they could and used considerable members funds in attempting to stop the members meeting. Under the new constitution, the Directors have a duty to ensure that candidates have the knowledge to operate at Board of Directors level. The Directors do not control who is voted onto the Board as that remains the right of members. Any group of Directors that set out to dominate the Board and act inappropriately, that is other than in the best interests of all members, would come to the unwelcomed attention of ASIC. Directors are exposed to quite severe penalties as prescribed by the Corporations Act if Directors do not act in good faith and for the benefit of ALL members. We will have more capable, more disciplined and more accountable Directors under the new Constitution. To give you an example, at the last election for the Sth Australian Region, there were two highly qualified candidates but, as SA has an entitlement of only 1 Board Member we got the benefit of only one of those two candidates. While there is a provision in the new Constitution to be able to compensate Directors for the considerable time and energy they contribute there are no plans to actually do that at the moment or, in my view, for the foreseeable future. Similarly, we have under the new Constitution provisions for registration and management of Spacecraft but we aren't planning on running flight training schools for astronauts just yet. Nobody would argue for directors of a local aero club to be remunerated for being on the Club's management committee. However, there could come a day, e.g., when RAAus has, say, absorbed all the other RAAOs and much of recreational GA has been placed under the self-administration model and taken under RAAus's wing. If we were talking about a body with 25,000 members and a turnover in the $5 million to $10 million range it could be cost effective to have a senior legal and finance people on the Board. If we don't offer to compensate those people then we may not get the level of Directors that we would then need. There is a very large difference between running an organisation of that size and your local flying school with a CFI and one instructor. I once put a Special Resolution to an RAAus AGM to limit the term of Board Members to, if I recall correctly, three terms. It was voted down by the Board. The argument for limited terms is that we are a more mature organisation now than we were 30 years ago. It would not be unfair to say that the Board now has a much higher average age than the kids had when it was kicked off. There are many reasons for limiting the terms of Board Members and they include fresh ideas, not imposing on the same small group for 25 years or more, etc. The new Constitution does not limit the time a highly regarded, young Director (e.g. Mick Monck) can spend in the service of RAAus on the Board. But, if Mick wanted to spend more than 9 years on the Board he would need a Special Resolution to be allowed to do that. There are examples with the EAA in the USA where one person has done a brilliant job over decades in the top job so it shouldn't be precluded - just made a bit more difficult. I have no doubt that MIck Monck could do another 15 or 20 years on our Board and, if he's doing as good a job then as he's doing now, he would easily pass the test of a Special Resolution. Agreed. And the new Constitution does not avoid that principle. However, this is not as black and white as you might imagine. Virtually every person who can be a Board Member is going to have a degree of personal interest in every matter that comes to the Board. For example, if the annual budget contained a provision for an increase in fees, every Director will be personally affected. Similarly, if a reduction in fees or even no change in fees was proposed every Director has a potential conflict of interest - do they look after their personal best interest by voting against a fee rise or do they look after their personal best interest by voting in favour of an increase so RAAus remains viable and he can continue to have access to low regulation aviation? The important thing is every Director must consider their personal interest and if it is material (significant not trivial) must declare it. Clause 43.3 requires Directors with a material personal interest to not vote and not participate in the discussion. Clause 43.4 recognises that it may be in the best interest of RAAus to hear from a Director who has particular expertise in an area even though they have a material personal interest. For example if they were the only CFI on the Board then the Board's discussion could well benefit from input from a CFI on the matter. Without Directors and Officers insurance you would be financially insane to agree to be a director of a company. But, the premium for D&O's insurance must be approved by the Board even though they each have a material personal interest in having D&O insurance. Allowing a director with a material personal interest to participate and vote on an issue has very severe conditions placed on it by Clause 43.4 and the Corporations Law. Agreed Frank. Time is short and we have a deadline to get this done so we can start the new Company with effect from the start of the new financial year, 1 july 2016. To delay it for another year is more undesirable than having to work harder to get it done in time for the new financial year. The Board has been working hard on it for the last few weeks and will continue right up to the deadline for getting the final draft to the members for a vote. I earnestly encourage everyone to not dismiss this critical-to-the-future of RAAus project out of hand because they are not prepared to take the time to read yet another bloody draft. We are delaying the draft that was to come out last Friday to next Friday to ensure we have a document that is near final draft. Communication to date hasn't been perfect but it will have been reasonable by the time we get to vote.

Rhys, As you can see, The Members' Charter is inextricably tied to the Constitution and has the force of the Constitution. However, as you could guess, many (most?) of our 10,000 members would never have read the current Constitution nor the drafts of the proposed constitution. Having it popped out from the Constitution just makes it more accessible and more likely to be read than if it were buried amongst the 67 clauses of the new Constitution.

I thank all members who have raised with the CEO the issues that concern you. They are thereby put on official record and must be attended to. The CEO may not be able to respond directly other than an acknowledgement of receipt but all input will be given consideration. Rather than trying to answer individually the pages and pages and pages of issues raised above can I ask that you look closely at the 3rd edition of the Constitution news email that will be out in later this week. It will have a link to the draft of the Members Charter and I think that it will relieve a lot of your reasonable concerns. Considerable work is being undertaken on the draft of the Constitution and a further version will be released along with the draft of the Disputes Procedure as soon as available. The revisions do not alter the broad thrust of the current draft of the Constitution but incorporates a considerable number of fixes. There is not much point to further discuss the current draft - better to save your ammunition for the next draft where you will be able to see what of your suggestions that have been communicated through proper channels (Admin/CEO) have been accepted. If all you've done is air your thoughts on here then that is possibly all that will happen with them.

My view is that this is all a journalist trying to beat up a story out of nothing. It could be that AOPA's action prompted Mr Skidmore to wonder about the appropriateness of the DAS/CEO at CASA being a member of an organisation whose reason for being is to represent its members in opposing CASA. I'd want a bit more evidence than resigning from AOPA to show that Mr Skidmore has been dragged over to the dark side.

Good luck Frank, I think you'll have better than 1 chance in three. Don

Virtually every landing I make is a glide approach either from base (on occasion) or late final (almost always). Not what we are talking about here, Oscar. I'm not in the habit of declaring an emergency and issuing a MAYDAY call when in the circuit. What we are talking about is a lot of decisions that have to be made quickly and confidently and executed with precision and good timing to avoid a very unhappy ending. I feel no threat while in the circuit other than below 500 ft on take-off. If people believe their are no risks in an outlanding, they live in a different part of the world than I do. Two stroke engines and flying low and never over anything resembling difficult geography made some RAAus members very relaxed about engine failures. However, in an aircraft carrying 100 litres of highly combustible fuel with wheels more suited to tarmac than cow paddocks and with an aversion to tree stumps, power lines and fences and a nose wheel happy to stop before the rest of the aircraft outlandings are always going to be rated by me as a potential fatality. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not giving credit to the potential dangers not usually found on 1,100 metres of tar.

Ah, the ultimate insult or is "CASA thinking" like one of those things for which "military intelligence" is usually provided as the example - oxymoron? If it is not a potential fatality why are we trained to declare an emergency and call MAYDAY? Standard risk management stuff: probability x severity of outcome = risk An engine out has the potential to cause death. True? (Not talking about a deliberate disengagement of engine power but of an unplanned loss) The fact that death, in most cases is avoided does not reduce the possible severity of an engine failure at altitude. No, not at all. How many times could a person answer a text message while driving in Sydney without killing somebody? Done every day by, I would guess, thousands of drivers with zero actual harm coming to anyone. But, does the lucky actual outcome make texting while driving any less dangerous? Just because you didn't happen to run off the road and kill 7 toddlers in a preschool was it a safe thing to do? Absolutely not. Just because a person flies mostly west of the Great Divide where there are usually plenty of safe impromptu ALAs does not diminish the potential for death as the outcome of an unplanned in-the-air engine failure. Flying east of the ranges makes an engine out a much bigger risk than in the golden west.

Frank, Before coming to a final position on the new constitution, I hope you will do us the courtesy of having a close look at the final draft and the Special Resolutions that will be the vehicle for the adoption of the new constitution. Every vote will be critical to the future of RAAus. It will be, I believe, a watershed or pivotal moment in the history of RAAus. I would be amazed and disappointed if it wasn't decided by proxies. I have attended every AGM since 2010 and for all, except the 2011 AGM, it has been at considerable and my personal expense. However, I don't expect members to flock to Canberra at great personal expense when a proxy vote will serve perfectly well. If it were to turn on the votes of the <40 members that I would expect to attend at Fyshwick it would not be a good comment on the state of the RAAus democracy. All I ask is for an informed and considered vote based on members reading the information made available to them and making enquiries of the people who have put in the considerable time and hard work to get the draft written. Voting "No" on the basis that somebody said it's a pile of crap is not what RAAus deserves.

Bite sized pieces. Not everyone of our 10,000 members are as tuned in or as interested as you are . If it was all dumped in one go most would drown under the volume and it would all get the tldr (too long didn't read) response and be counter-productive. Members have been given the opportunity to voice opposition and none that I am aware of has been voiced to RAAus. They were advertised well in advance and typically, very informal gatherings, sitting around in a tent where ordinary members could feel comfortable asking questions and expressing views. No secretarial staff were present and they were not held as formal meetings. I flew at my own cost to Evans Head and attended the meeting there with Mick Monck and Michael Linke - it went very well. I guess the Board takes the view that they were elected by the members to do a job and they are getting on with it. The draft has been and is being put to the members with explanations and opportunities for comments and questions. I think you may be overstating the interest of members other than yourself and a few on here to make an unsupported contribution. Consider the typical "turnout" at elections for the Board. I believe the vast majority of members want their Board to work this way - they look to the Board for leadership. I must be missing something. Where in the draft constitution does it say "removal of elected board members in favor of appointed board"? As far as I can see only the Members can remove a Director. 37. When a Director stops being a Director A Director immediately and irrevocably stops being a Director if they: © are removed as a Director by a resolution of the Members (Don's emphasis) Yes, the Board can nominate to fill a casual vacancy but all Directors must face an election by the members.