DonRamsay

"If it is to prepare itself, and provide for, the next wave of online community upsurge, I need to know your thoughts on where to from here." Essentially, I think more of the same but find ways to attract new members. I came here first from a Google search, can't remember what it was. Found a few different fora but this was far superior to any others in form and content with a great bunch of friendly contributors. I know it was an important part of getting through the lows of ab initio flying training and continues to add to my bank of experience without actual hours in the air. I've had the enormous benefit of the experience of quite a few wise heads with Facthunter a shining light!

No question this is a superior resource than anything that exists or is likely to exist on FB. RecFlying is serious and FB is not. The point of FB is a low intensity chat with friends. Often here the debates are far more serious and in much greater depth. The only thing FB has over RecFlying is that virtually all young people are on FB. So, then it becomes a question of how do we get younger people interested in flying as something they can do as opposed something that is done for them? So, if you want to get people to s fly-in FB could be useful because of its immediacy and reach. RecFlying also can and does do it but it can be a bit like preaching to the converted. But, e.g., if you want to understand the advantages and disadvantages of in-flight variable pitch props that can only be done in a forum like this. In my view, no comparison. FB posts are rarely more than a sentence or two and on here can be several well argued paragraphs.

So, if you are refuelling a metal aircraft that's been in the hangar for a week, from plastic jerry can, through a plastic Mr Funnel perhaps the thing that most needs earthing is the person doing the refuelling? Plastic rubbing against the synthetic carpet in your car boot can generate static and the plane can pick up a good charge ripping through the sky.

When people sue, they go looking for who has deep pockets. As such, people who sue RA-Aus are always going to join CASA as a co-defendant. Keeping a big cash reserve to pay off lawsuits just sets you up for a fall. The building is a form of financial reserve that could be borrowed against if we ever got that desperate. Under no circumstances EVER should RA-Aus even think about owning an airfield or building or buying hangars. We have enough trouble running the bit we have without adding those responsibilities to the mix. And who ever made a quid out of running aviation businesses?

Whether you print 11,000 or 12,000 copies, the total cost is not much different. But, if you get down to low numbers the cost per copy becomes prohibitive. For my money, I can't see the value of printing the Members Market any longer. By the time the magazine is printed it is well out of date and it's available on the web in a better presentation. Before we go knocking off printing we would need to be sure the advertisers are happy about it. Being distributed for free on the net is the best way to get it most widely read by the people we want to read it . . .younger people to replace us in time.

Sorry about that. I tried from the iPad - try again from the PC . . . Refuelling AN bulletin.pdf Refuelling AN bulletin.pdf Refuelling AN bulletin.pdf

David, I agree 100% and have argued this way for a long time. Although the process is ideal, sadly the outcomes from CASA rarely approach ideal. THe same could happen with RA-Aus if the processis given just lip service. But without proper member consultation, ownership and respect for the result is diminished.

Wow! That was amazing. I was at Cairns one day in the tower and one of the controllers asked me what I Fly and when I told him he said he'd be pleased to have me land at Cairns International! Just then he cleared a single engine Cessna to land with a big fat airbus not far behind. The Cessna got in and turned of the runway - all very uneventful. Still might be a while before I'd chance that with only a Pilot Cert!

Filled it in and from memory I disagreed with pretty well everything. Must have been having a bad day?

I still don't see any empire building FT (other than by CASA). Please give me an example.

While I have heard of Rotax 912 engines running to 3,000+ hours "on condition" I wonder how they routinely assess the condition of the crankshaft. As I understand it 912 crankshafts are the first thing in the bin during a TBO overhaul. It was the crankshaft that failed in the double fatality in the Sting near Goulburn in the last decade. Compression test is, of course, not going to show up a failing crankshaft.

Poor airmanship.

Col, All good. Trouble with "Slush Fund" is that it has become associated with crooked Union bosses and their girlfriends. Nothing illegal about the reserves but, as you cans see above, I agree strongly with "if you squirrel away money with no obvious well articulated plan then you haven't done your planning and if you have funds lying around just waiting for some rainy day (which may or may never never ever occur) then you will have board members just itching to spend it" being not good management.

Camel, If you would like to know a bit more about this issue, have a word with Keith Rule. If you need his contact details, send me an email, PM or text. Regards Don

As we said above, running an iPad (with a previously fully charged battery) on 12V power stops the battery from charging or discharging in flight and it remains cool. The charging system does have to be able to deliver 2 Amps as 1 Amp is just not enough current.

Maj, The Capt has outgrown our little organisation

Col, Good that we've raised the tone from "Slush Fund" to "Reserves". A brief recent history. When I got elected in Sep 2011 (seems a million years ago) I was stunned to see that we had, from memory, $2.5 million in net assets (Total Assets -Total Liabilities for non-accountants). Of this members reserve, there was $1.75 million in cash at the bank. That has all slipped a little since due to revaluation (downwards) of the Fyshwick Office and accumulated deficits over the last couple of years. My judgement at the time was that an organisation with annual revenues of $2.5 million and typically making an annual surplus of 10% of revenue should have had a net asset reserve of $0.5m to $0.75m. I then made the mistake of asking the assembled Board why we had such a humongous reserve. That was a mistake because nobody else seemed to notice that we had such a reserve and all thought it a good thing to be adding $250,000 p.a. to the reserve. The mistake part was that in those days many of the staff attended Board Meetings and they took it as carte blanche to go for a big pay rise and the Board Members then started trotting out pet projects like owning an airfield and building hangars all over Australia. To be fair, we also had the Carol Smith case on the run and the potential financial impact from that could have been quite large or nothing at all. There was no concept that we would be running deficits anytime soon and there was always the option of the RA-Aus monopoly upping fees to prevent running into deficit. The big surpluses had taken the focus of the Association off reducing costs. We were not making losses so nobody thought there was a problem. Fee increases had been modest and the fee was a very small part of any member's annual aviation costs. Only John McKeown was alarmed by the fact that the cost per member had steadily increased over the years instead of going down with economies of scale that should have eventuated from the rapidly increasing membership numbers. What changed was the impact of CASA once Lee Ungerman left RA-Aus and joined CASA as our nemesis. It was quite fair to require us to get our registrations in order even if it should never have been necessary to ground aircraft as part of a paper war. I have confidence that we now have a CEO who grasps these sorts of facts and understands what needs to be done to get RA-Aus onto a long term sustainable basis without ever increasing fees. I think Mark Clayton understood as well but never really got to do much about it being snowed under. I am not convinced our new Board is totally committed to reducing costs and fees. There is certainly a strong push to improve efficiency and to deliver more to members for the fees we pay through, e.g. discounts on hull insurance and fuel costs. Those savings could well offset a significant part of the fees we pay. I am also not sure that there is equity in the way RA-Aus is funded. CASA's contribution is woefully inadequate and aircraft owning members pay a disproportionate amount of the funding versus members who don't own aircraft. That also needs to be looked at and made fairer.

For example? Purchasing the office in Fyshwick that doubled in value from when it was purchased? Changing magazine editor that saved heaps? Putting away a financial reserve of $1.5 million? Running Natfly at a profit?

I don't have the technical knowledge or experience to judge that. However, if you are the Tech Mgr and you say "next service" and an engine fails before next service . . . Also, the sooner everyone reports in, the sooner it can be determined whether this is unusual or an epidemic and the Tech Manager can go back to the manufacturer with the results - real evidence.

While at Caboolture, have a fly of the Sling at GoFly. An hour over Bribie Is a very pleasant way to put in some time. I did it a couple of weeks back and loved it. Got some great advice from an instructor too (John).

The Board did say that they recognised that social media (RF is social media) is very important and particularly with the younger people who will replace us in time as recreational aviators. They also said that getting into social media requires that it be well resourced. Going in half-cocked and under resourced would be very counterproductive. In his first few months, the last thing I would like to see our CEO do is disappear into fora and facebook. I agree somebody at RA-Aus should be monitoring social media as they monitor traditional media and perhaps supplying the CEO with a pointed summary of what is topical. And guess what, we have Andy, Jim and the Maj posting here and a few others who monitor but don't post. What I would call a good start.

Regarding the deficit, a few hard decisions on high cost items like the magazine could see the budgeted deficit eliminated. A balanced budget is not out of reach and the budget is not out of control and the attention of the CEO and Board Exec are sharply focused on it. Investment in better information technology (IT systems in particular) can be treated as a capital investment and amortised over a few years and has a lesser effect on the deficit. However, there will need to be boots on the ground to drive the advancement of IT and that will be treated as an expense of the year in which it is incurred and will directly affect the bottom line. We need to wear this in the short term for the significant cost reductions and improvements in members service that will be generated by system improvements. If we want big cost reductions then we may need to give up our glossy mag and accept it as something to read on the iPad. If we want to keep a high cost structure then the Board will have to increase membership fees something I am categorically opposed to.

It could be that Michael Linke, being new to RA-Aus and aviation, has listened to the old guard on the Board about giving RecFlying a wide berth. We have over the years chewed up and spat out more than one or two Board Members who have gone off in a huff never to return. But the newer people who are doing the right thing are comfortable to engage here. If we want them to continue to come here then we need to converse with them with more respect than perhaps we give each other. There is another issue that while this is the biggest group of RA-Aus members, it is still a relatively small proportion of the total membership, certainly lees than half and perhaps less than one-third? There is an obligation on Board Members to share information equally with members and not just with a chosen group. Michaels Monck and Linke address this with bulk emailed newsletters which are improving in frequency and content. Perhaps because Michael Linke is new to aviation and RA-Aus he needs to be a little guarded initially until he becomes more familiar and better able to see the B/S from the good stuff? He was hired to be a good manager, establish strong governance, drive down costs and support and mentor the people who report to him and to support the President in liaison with our masters CASA and the Federal Government. His first few months have shown promise and I for one am prepared to give him 12 months to get established and more confident in all matters aviation.

Well, I had a great time at the AGM despite the cost of flying down from Newcastle (Jetstar). Got to meet up with all the Board except possibly Eugene. Also got to spend a bit of time with the new CEO of whom I had heard only good things. Michael Linke seems to me to be personable with good management experience and clear vision for what he wants to do at RA-Aus. We do now have a great Board and a strong management team. The Board had a Governance training session before the AGM and that on its own is representative of such a difference from the old RA-Aus that was not very interested in concepts like governance. There is No doubt in my mind that the Feb 2013 EGM at Queanbeyan was a turning point for RA-Aus - for the much better. I think I speculated around that time, pessimistically, that I though RA-Aus days were numbered. I am now convinced we have a bright future even if it will take perhaps another 12 months before that is obvious to all. The worst days are certainly behind us. The two Special Resolutions we proposed, being minor fixes of the Constitution, went through unopposed although Max Brown thought about voting against one of them but decided better - perhaps because he was within punching range of where I was sitting. Unfortunately, I had to dash off at 16:15 to see a man about an aeroplane and to get to Tullamarine in time for my flight home. At least I finally got enjoy the privilege of shaking Nev's hand on the way out the door. Sorry I hadn't known it was you Nev before and we could have had a proper chat. One day! Jim Tatlock went to a lot of trouble to present the financial numbers which, while not good, were a huge improvement over where we looked like finishing the financial year. There is still a bit of red ink to come out in 2014-15 but the CEO and the Board are working hard to minimise or eliminate the deficit. There was discussion of the need for CASA to kick in a great deal more funding for the CASA work done by RA-Aus. However, getting more money out of the present government when they are trying hard to balance their own books is never going to be easy. Really good to get the chance to chat with our host, Ian B, as well - hadn't seen Ian since Queanbeyan.