DonRamsay

No point debating with you Kirk when I quote literally the Constitution and you say "NOTHING you wrote is what we actually have in the Constitution". You may read the Constitution any way you like but I will stick with the facts. Just because you say something is a "FACT" does not make it so. On review of what I wrote, I am comfortable that the essence of what I was saying was correct and on review of your response I am satisfied that you are actually wrong in fact. So, like I said, no point in us arguing if we can't even agree what a fact is. Don

Should I accept that as an apology?

Tom, I don't claim expertise in this area. You would get a better answer from Tony King or Trevor Bange. Personally, if my life were to depend on an aircraft I had designed and built or just built from a kit or plans I would absolutely want somebody to do stage checks of my work - preferably a L4 but almost any other set of eyes could see things I had wrong.. Don't SAAA require stage checks? Don

My suggestion of "assumption" relates to your suggestion that I ignored the Deed. You were not a party to any correspondence on the Board Forum nor any Board Meeting, nor emails nor phone calls. So it can only be an assumption based on zero facts. One of the reasons RAAus achieved so little against the advisory booklet was that we were so underfunded. RAAus did work delegated by CASA to RAAus for which we were paid about 5% of what it cost. The same CASA responsibilities CASA carried out for GA and fully funded them. In the last 6 years my opposition to the Deed as a completely unbalanced arrangement has been unrelenting. WTF! I was not on the Board at anytime when Ed Herring was on the Exec nor when the nepotism involving Myles was being promoted. Again, Alan you come up with outlandish comments for which you have no capability of any substantiation. Have to say I am very disappointed and way below your usual standard of thoroughness. More like something you would expect from F_T.

Clearly I have mislead you. Allow me to clarify what I was getting at. Experts of any field can be armchair critics and some Board Members have been know to just turn up for the sandwiches and actually contribute very, very little - if anything at all. The difference I was alluding to are the writers versus the people who get off their butts to actually do something to make change happen. Being an armchair critic does not make you wrong (or right) or an expert but it achieves little other than make the writer feel they have actually done something. In early 2010, I was an armchair critic, appalled by the way RAAus was being operated. Then I campaigned extensively (at considerable personal expense) and got elected to the Board in Sep 2011 only to resign under duress in about May 2012. Off the Board I continued to campaign for change and personally presented some 25 amendments to the Constitution to try and force the Board to pay some regard to Governance. I worked very hard with the members who managed to call the extraordinary General Meeting at Queanbeyan in 2013 despite virulent opposition from the then Board to be held accountable including the famous "legal advice" paid for by you and me that Runciman to this day has refused to disclose. I suspect considerable members funds were used by that Board to defend their entrenched position. I campaigned for and contested a casual vacancy and was again elected to the Board in 2015. I have attended every General Meeting and AGM since 2010 again at the personal cost of several thousands of dollars. This may just sound like blowing my own trumpet but the point is that since about April 2010 until the commencement of RAAus Ltd., I don't think anyone could level a claim of "armchair critic" at me (and plenty would not suggest "expert" either). There were, iirc, 8 or 10 weeks of consultation and as many versions of the resolutions on the basis of changes suggested by members. Agreed and they have never claimed that. Refer comment above about the many weeks of consultation that resulted in changes. Again, I contest that their was no consultation. The recent elections were a significant and positive endorsement of the direction the current Board has taken. If you want to see things done differently you have to engage in the democratic process. Writing on this or other forums has not made a big difference. For example, the balance of views on this forum you may recall was overwhelmingly opposed to the changes that received an "in favour" vote from an overwhelming majority of the members who engaged in the democratic process by voting.

Keith, Even you must see that there are more stakeholders in an RAAO than just its members. This is not a local sporting club - it is a body that acts for members in administration of matters delegated to it by CASA. As Dr. Aleck writes: "It is still intended that RAAOs will perform a great many functions pursuant to the delegated authority conferred on them under the regulations." (my emphasis) As everyone knows, RAAus does not create rules in a vacuum. CASA supervises RAAus in all matters of Safety and they have the force of Law behind them. RAAus does not have the power to tell CASA what to do when CASA can and does invoke legislation, regardless of what members may prefer in a "members organisation". RAAus is, and continues to be, a "Members Organisation" but it is also an organisation with powers delegated to it by CASA and supervised by CASA. You might like to note that FACT for reference when you are next in a Board Meeting for E&LAAA or telling SASAO how to do their job. Not sure I understand that weird and vague sentence but I'll have a go anyhow. Anyone who has had anything to do with RAAus for the last at least 2 or possibly 3 years would have been aware that the Tech Manual was being rewritten. Especially anyone who happened to read newsletters and SportPilot. A number of L4, L3 and L2 authorities were consulted and the entire Board. This is in clear contrast to your suggestion that "nobody" was consulted or that it was "done in secret". I completely reject Rod's statement that it was commenced in secrecy. It was never a secret at any time to my knowledge. That's your conspiracy theory but one completely lacking evidence and therefore not one to which I could give any credence. Time will tell. It will be very interesting to see how you go about funding the start up of an RAAO and maintaining it financially until (if ever) you have sufficient subscribing member numbers to become self-funding. Nobody could call you an armchair critic KP. Clearly you have taken a very bold step with other disgruntled RAAus members to form a breakaway RAAO. I won't wish you good luck with that endeavour but I do sincerely hope that you achieve more good than harm. Don

Really? Quite an assumption without any knowledge and without merit for a further response. Not the Coal Mines Regulation Act or the Dept of Mines or the Joint Coal Board or the Unions or . . . .

Perhaps you should avoid standing outside a brothel window if you don't want to hear moaning? Keith, Perhaps they were listened to, assessed as wrong and left in the position of a tiny minority? Everyone in a democracy is entitled to their view - they are not entitled to have their tiny minority view outweigh a massive majority. Just because a tiny group yell "long and hard" does not mean they are correct or their voluble opinion is shared by the vast majority. It was shown to a number of highly capable and experienced members as I've answered in a separate post. I expect you are going to show us all how an RAAO should be formed and run. By whom to whom? Sorry, a bit too cryptic for me to respond.

With regard to the Tech Manual some facts would not go astray: This was not just a minor revision of the old Tech Manual - it was a blank sheet total rewrite.That is a huge job and difficult enough to do with a small committee but impossible to get done in our lifetime with a committee of 10,000. It will never be a consensus document - you cannot please everybody. It was done at the same time as The Tech Manager was digging RAAus out of the incredible hole dug by the Board of which Rod was a member (Rod was often in the minority on that Board dominated by the likes of Runciman, Middleton and Reid). There was a limited seeking of input to the drafts and I agree this was undesirable but necessary having regard to the urgency to replace the old, out-of-date manual that CASA had been complaining about for years. The people consulted were some of the foremost maintainers in RAAus and included L4, L3 and L2. There was considerable time allowed to the Board for review and comment and Board members are always free to seek advice. Personally, I was content to rely on the views of top notch maintainers like (L2/L3) Trevor Bange and (L4) Keith Rule. The new manual is not cast in concrete and is completely open for revision by members recommendation. Complaining about it here seems to me to be of little or no value. Giving constructive, well argued feedback to the CEO for consideration by the Tech Manager would seem to be a much more productive way to go about it. There is a phase-in period that can allow any unintended consequences to be identified and rectified before it goes final.Yes, it would be good to get it right from day 1 but there can always be unintended consequences. There is the opportunity for further revision for the next minor update as Ver 4.1 Regardless of the view of the many "experts" here, in my view we have been fortunate in the extreme to have a Tech Manager of the capability of Darren Barnfield - he stands head and shoulders over virtually all Tech Managers who preceded him. He is uniquely qualified for the job and would be extremely difficult to replace. WIth Board Members like Frank, Tony and Trevor, he was also well supervised to ensure members interests were protected to the extent CASA would allow. There was considerable argy bargy with CASA in finalising the document and I consider we got the best of it. Plenty may not agree with my view and you are entitled to do so of course. Difference is those like Frank that have a good go and those like (insert your favourite armchair critic) who plonk away on their keyboard and make no difference to anything.

The Constitution at 27.1 actually states: "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)." For normal administration purposes and to save RAAus the costs of a special mailing to 10,000 members ($10,000 postage + stationery + staff effort) a resolution must be received by the organisation in sufficient time to meet the 21 days notice required for an AGM (Cl 21.2). N.B., 21 days is a minimum. Therefore, RAAus was prudent in refusing your tardy request and thereby preserving members funds. It would be grossly unfair to all members of RAAus for a resolution of any kind to be put to a General Meeting (including an AGM) where Notice of the Resolution has not been provided with the Agenda. The exception would be, I think, a resolution in relation to the conduct of the meeting. It is unlikely we will ever see more than a couple of hundred members ever attend an AGM or GM. Having a vote of such a small proportion of the membership deciding anything would be grossly unfair to the entire membership. From what I read of your complaint, you have no grounds for such a statement. A statement that defames people and is manifestly untrue and is published could be grounds for an action. You might like to be more cautious what you publish Kirk. Under the Constitution the Board was not required to even have an Annual General Meeting (AGM) until up to 18 months from the date of registration. If the Board was trying to avoid scrutiny it could have held the first AGM for RAAus Ltd late in 2017. Instead they opted to have it very early, just a few months from incorporation - just long enough to have an election to take the Board numbers to the MAXIMUM 7 not the minimum (5). To me this seems like just another example of distortion to blacken the reputations of the RAAus Board and management and make the vapourware alternative seem more attractive. Don

Kirk, I can't help but wonder why you are so intent on smacking RAAus? (edited ...mod) The RAAus Directir elections were completed during the period after the incorporation was approved by ASIC and are in my view completely valid. Looking back on the process, there is nothing that did not meet the spirit of the overwhelming result in favour of restructuring RAAus that you so vehemently opposed. (Edited...mod) Don

Bill, Your assessment of the cost-shifting activities of CASA is pretty close to the mark. As you may know, RAAus has a one-sided Deed forced on it by CASA that includes an obligation for RAAus to have an SMS. The Deed includes a very nominal payment by CASA to RAAus. This is a matter of great concern to past and current Boards. You must remember who the 400kg gorilla is in this deal. It is stating the bleeding obvious that CASA has the legal power to do just about anything they fancy. For the Deed to be a fair and balanced contract the payment from CASA would be $millions not approx $100k. The safety manager we have is outstanding and is doing a very good job. She acts as CEO in his absence. Compare her to Myles and we are into chalk and cheese territory. One thing that may not be apparent is that at one stage CASA wanted each flying school/club to have its own SMS. That is now improved to be an over-arching SMS for all of RAAus. Don

Scotts, I was very dissatisfied with PSB previously but it could be that they were taking their lead from Tizzard. And it was a particular person at PSB that let RAAus down badly but, to be fair scrambled hard to undo the damage. It is possible that they learned from that debacle. I certainly hope so. I can recommend Ian Tait for excellent service and competitive premiums. [email protected]

Keith, if you were fair dinkum all your posts bagging out RAAus would be prefaced with a declaration that you are in the process of setting up a competing organisation that you hope to profit from - feel free to correct me if I'm misinformed on this point. Next, Runcinan was never accused of fraud by anyone. He was a very hard-working, if misguided President. He meant no ill to RAAus. His mistake, in my view, was supporting a CEO who failed to get Insurance renewed two years in succession and thereby exposed the organisation to unimaginable risks at a time when the organisation was, in my view accident prone. This view may have been vindicated by the registrations debacle. My personal experience with Willis was that they were not delivering the promised good value insurance to members. I was able to obtain insurance from a top class insurer for many hundreds of dollars less than was on offer from Willis. I had no part in getting rid of Willis or going back to PSB. My experience with PSB has been that I would never use them, ever... Ever! Once let down I am very slow to forgive. A commercially astute person would always seek a broker they are happy to work with. Such happiness comes from good service and competitive rates.

Now that you've come clean, Keith Page, and admitted what you are up to it is easier to understand your unrelenting damning of everything RAAus does. Good luck with running your version of RAAus for personal profit. Just be sure you write your own Ops and Tech manuals and Safety Management system and don't attempt to filch RAAus intellectual property and copyrights. Competition can be good for customers as long as they choose the successful model and don't do their dough on a dud.

Not necessarily. If you've been to a few air shows after awhile they all start to look the same. Have to say that the RAAF display was very spectacular last time. Precision flying you could not help but admire. I don't think a few hours over lunchtime on Saturday is too much time out of the weekend.

I've been using the iPad mini mounted in a RAM mount for a few years with good results. I previously used the bigger iPad in a knee mount I bought from OzRunways ($35). I am now thinking of upgrading to the iPad Air. Put simply, if you can fit a big one in your panel, use the big one. If you can't use the mini it works OK.

Most who voted would have voted for up to 5 candidates. Not much point voting for more than 5. Vote turn out was, imho, dismal, at about 1,000 valid ballots. To some extent this reflects the comfort members have with the successful renovation of RAAus lead by Mick Monck and Michael Linke and the rapid pace of positive change they have embarked on. Getting new versions of the Tech and Ops Manuals, a new IT system and a new constitution and form of incorporation in one year and stemming the financial losses of the past is a breath-taking achievement. A few seem to forget so soon that the old guard were complicit in the mal administration that lead to RAAus having so many aircraft grounded in the registrations fiasco as they brought the wrath of CASA down upon us.

(snipe removed - Mod) Nev, as always, I find myself in agreement. There were mistakes made by well intentioned people. That happens. RAAus has evolved over time and such evolution is inevitable. Nothing stays the same. It has become, like it or not, much more than home builders of ultralights from scratch designs. It will continue to evolve even more rapidly in the future. I see a merging of private GA and RA. I see an incredibly bright future. I would not have said that in early 2013. (snipe removed - Mod) Me, I'll just continue enjoying late summer in Bordeaux and taste a few more reds.

Did somebody miss the *fact* that the business of RAAus Ltd is Aviation? Nobody is in business to do business. Every business that survives does so because they are good at managing the business they are in. RAAus does not have multiple layers of middle managers. It is a lean and efficient organisation and almost the antithesis of CASA. And, if irc, the ONLY prerequisite for being a director of RAAus Ltd is that you must be a PILOT! Give me a pilot who has strong management experience in preference to a pilot who has no management experience any day. RAAus Inc almost ceased to exist under the control of a Board of pilots with *no* medium to large business management experience. They almost managed RAAus into oblivion. Our reputation in the industry hit rock bottom with hundreds if not thousands of aircraft grounded. How soon we forget! By all means re-elect the old guard and ride the downward spiral and have the registrations debacle Mk2.

I met Mr Skidmore and was very impressed. It was clear to me that he was in no way led by Dr Aleck. MS was clearly the one setting the direction. His resignation is a big loss to RAAus and I pessimistically expect this will seriously adversely affect the RAAus proposal for 750 kgs and access to CTA. After October, there will be a caretaker CEO at CASA who will just keep things steady and not make significant decisions.all progress will go on the back burner. The replacement for Skidmore will not be up to speed much before this time next year. It will be clear fairly quickly after the appointment of his replacement as to whether the Govt is serious about the implementation of the Av Safety review and the repair of CASA. It is not the lowest levels in CASA where the problem lies but in the permafrost of middle management.

Anyone who ever responds in any way to the unrelenting trolling from the non-RAAus member and "Australian president of WankPuffins International" (APWPI) needs to reconsider what they think they may achieve from such a conversation. I'd personally like to clarify that even though I will never again respond directly to any of the inscrutable grumblings that originate from the APWPI, my silence must never be taken as not disagreeing 100%. Don

An aircraft with substantial damage can go through a change of owner process with that information reported on the ACR. As has been said many times the ACR is not a statement of airworthiness. What happens with the registration in that situation I don't know. I hav only ever bought and sold airworthy aircraft.

Again you seem to miss the point (intentionall?) that a L1 can do 3 of the 4 inspections not only L2 or L4. Thanks for your frank views on the rest of it. We can not all be experts on everything and you are arguing with the wrong person if you want to get into questions of aircraft design. My interests and experience is more suited to matters of good governance, finance and IT. I have confidence that the new Tech Manual is as good as it can be considering the time and talent available. I believe it will improve with v4.1 and 4.2 etc. I am not in a position to argue the details with you. How you make the Tech Manual better is up to you but I would hazard a guess that moaning about it on Rec Fying, a forum studiously avoided by everyone at RAAus, is unlikely to make any difference at all. Good luck with getting v4.1 to being more to your liking. By taking action you would believe you are doing all 10,000 members a favour.

As you would appreciate, I was not seeking an answer to inform myself but to point out that a L1 could do three inspections and that to me does not out all builders out of pocket in a big way and in the "screwed" category as you asserted. The final inspection by a L2 or L4 is surely a sound idea in the best interests of all?