DonRamsay

Oscar, we also have an historical paper issue. So, we need an effective document management system with old paper records searchable online and, for the first time ever, backed up! The new system of course would be all digital.

 

 

. . . I like most don't actually want to pay more, but my post should be read as If its a choice between paying more to ensure longevity, or paying less and bugger the future then I'll relatively happily go for the first option.

That's how I read it Andy. You know I am driven to see cost reductions before fee increases. We have the capital to achieve the cost reductions it is just a matter of will to get on and do it.

 

A number of folks have suggested that we need to go back to our ultralight origins . . .

That always sounds to me a bit like Cher's "If we could t u r n back ti-ime".

 

Nobody to my knowledge has ever done anything to reduce the privileges of people who want to fly 95:10 / 95:25, rag and tube stuff. Reality is that the great bulk of people who make up the membership of RA-Aus don't do it. Some don't even want to do it. Most do want to be able to go somewhere at a rate of knots not mess about in the back paddock. But so what? Neither interferes with the other. They are not mutually exclusive activities. One does not detract or enhance the other. If those that mourn the passing of the old days wanted to go out and re-form the AUF, they are at liberty to do so - if they can demonstrate to CASA that they have the resources in place to be an effective SASAO. I don't advocate that but I certainly wouldn't campaign against it.

 

. . . getting additional funding in present government budget realities may be as likely as winning lotto no matter how reasonable the argument is, and the potential exploitable efficiencies today seem as far away from reality as they were last February 9th. Rightly or wrongly I can see members being asked for more $ as being the more likely of the two at present IF progress towards a sustainable future is indeed started.

I understand your pessimism Andy but how could they, in good faith, put the fees up when they are sitting on a bundle of cash that is not earmarked for anything? Until the future strategy is clear and the cash flow analysis that matches that strategy has been determined, how would they know whether they needed more revenue or not? Hang on a minute, they must know because they've already put up the fees. Wonder when they'll tell us?

 

I am always reminded of the quintessential advice on strategy from that grand master of Business Administration, the Cheshire Cat, given to Alice in Wonderland:

 

Alice: I was just wondering if you could help me find my way.

 

Cheshire Cat: Well that depends on where you want to get to.

 

Alice: Oh, it really doesn't matter, as long as...

 

Cheshire Cat: Then it really doesn't matter which way you go.

 

RA-Aus needs to get a clear understanding of what it wants to become and establish the plan to get there. One small element of that is where should we call home?

 

 

There are submissions to the current Aviation Review instigated by Warren Truss to get rid of ASICs altogether. The Libs say they want to reduce regulation and this is a really easy target to hit. As somebody said, do it once every 10 years like your passport - every two years is panic stations.

 

 

Oscar, Your analysis is exactly the sort of thing the sub-committee need to work through. Some comments on what you've written.

 

. . . I can't really think of any reason for RAA to stay in Canberra, other than perhaps lobbying, which I don't believe it has ever done well (or maybe - at all?).

If you listen to Eugene Reid in particular he will tell you that there was in fact a tremendous amount of lobbying with considerable success. That lobbying was what got us from below 300 ft to up to 10,000 ft and many many other benefits/privileges. But for McCormick, we might by now evern have transit of CTA. Steve Tizzard, our immediate past CEO, felt that he achieved wonders because of his fabulous contacts at CASA in Canberra. For those of us who were observers of the "wonders" we might be less convinced. Pretty hard for me to see anything that was achieved during Tizzard's time other than wrack and ruin. Of course now the Sport Aviation Office is not in Canberra but in Brisvegas.

 

Nor do I hold a brief for any other particular site, other than that I believe that any HQ location needs to be sited where it will be most effective at performing its key tasks.

Nor do I (but I wouldn't object if YMND was chosen ). If the Committee's eventual choice shows some bias it will not be well accepted by the far-flung, 13 demi-gods who sit at the top table.

 

. . . I'll list what I think are the significant factors that should be considered . . .1) Accessibility by the membership. Rationally, this does not necessarily mean 'physical accessibility' as in - the most convenient place for members to be able to walk through the door. How many members visit - or feel they would need to visit - RAA HQ in, say, a year? I suspect it is a very low percentage, and with advances in IT-based teleccomunications, this is becoming less and less. So, accessibility in general terms may well be better achieved by ensuring that RAA HQ has very good telecommunications capability, with good local IT back-up etc.

Agree. I'm reminded of my mantra that if I ever have to walk into a bank, something has failed. Everything done on the 'net or, as a fallback, a telephone conversation. RA-Aus should be the same: online, self-service for the simple stuff like re-rego and membership renewal.

 

Could you imagine the staff getting anything done if they had as few as 1% (100) of the Members "dropping in for a coffee and a chat" per week?

 

However, we should not be going the other way and putting RA-Aus somewhere that the bulk of members couldn't fly in if they chose. Add to that thinking the convenience of holding NATFLY adjacent to the RA-Aus permanent Office rather than hauling all sorts of stuff the 200+kms from Canberra to Temora or 400 kms to Narromine?

 

I would see down the track an opportunity for CFIs/SIs and L2/L3s/L4s gathering at the RA-Aus base for briefings/training and accreditation. Courses for Pilots and L1 need to be done in the regions where the Members live for them to be genuinely accessible.

 

2) Attractive to recruit and retain high-quality staff. If RAA retains a 'centralised' staff model, then the HQ needs to be located somewhere where the sort of staff RAA needs, will be happy to live and work. A complex one, because of course people's tastes vary, and you can't please all of the people all of the time.. Cost of relocation, climate, steady real-estate values, proximity to 'interesting' venues etc. would all play a part. Obviously, if RAA can operate on a more decentralised staff model (and I personally believe it can), then many of those issues diminish as problems..

This is an important one but we know that Staff turnover happens for many reasons. It is even healthy to have some turnover to keep things fresh and bring in new ideas. However, a move away from Canberra is likely to involve a high level of redundancies and would need to be considered carefully in any relocation. The new location must offer reasonably good employment opportunities for partners of staff and good education opportunities for their children. A location like Narromine, with Dubbo City (pop. 35,000) 20 minutes away may gain an advantage over Temora (pop. 4,000).

 

The employment resources model that has formed in the dark recesses of my thinking is a central office facility lead by the Chief Executive (whatever the title) with an Administration Manager and clerical staff. The clerical support of the Technical and Operations Managers wold be centrally based and lead by the Admin Manager with Business/Management Accounting, IT and Company Secretary competencies).

 

The Ops and Tech Managers will be doing their best work when they are out of the office. I see them working with Regional Committees to ensure quality standards are achieved and maintained. If they were in the central office more than one week a month then it may indicate an issue with priorities.

 

3) Cost and value. Intertwined, of course, but both need to be considered. For instance, establishing a completely new facility even fairly cheaply say at an airfield somewhere might well result in expenditure that could not later be effectively recovered. Conversely, a flash suite of offices in a sought-after location might not in reality improve RAA's performance of its key tasks any better than something far more modest. Assets are only assets if they are negotiable! (There are plenty of 'technology parks' that have been established with high expectations, that languish for occupancy).

Good points. Over-capitalising at an airport when GA is generally in decline and perhaps even RA also waning is a risk. However, we are planning for this to be the permanent home for RA-Aus so resale value is of less interest than acceptable functionality. To be the permanent home, we will look to owning the land and the building that sits on it. A lease less than 99 years would seem to me to not meet our permanency objective. We also need to understand the permanency of the airport and surrounding town. Mining towns come and go. Sadly, even agricultural towns come and go especially if it comes down to sold off water rights.

 

RA-Aus stands for low-cost flying and that requires a low cost central administration - we currently do not have a low cost central administration due to the widely recognised lack of modern systems. We are also going to have to get an element of "User Pays" into our administration fees. If you want to ignore the internet and do everything by paper and snail mail, the fees should start to reflect the different cost structures. If you want a nice glossy paper mag to take into the loo with you rather than a tablet version then that privilege is going to get quite expensive for you in the near future.

 

4) Symbolic quotient. Does RAA need - and would it get value from - having a high-visibility symbolic HQ? Is there a ROI factor that should be considered? By way of explanation: North Sydney has ( or certainly used to have) a high symbolic value as a location for IT companies; if you had flashy offices in North Sydney, you were considered a 'heavy hitter' in the IT game in the 90's and noughties. Effectively, you were purchasing cachet by installing yourself there. Whether it's North Sydney or Narromine - would it make any difference to RAA's perceived importance to say CASA / the Minister for Transport, make Recreational Aviation more attractive to new members etc. Hell, the current RAA HQ is literally a stroll from the Fairfax media major newspaper the Canberra Times offices - but I don't see RAA being consulted or quoted very often, unless there is an accident involving an RAA aircraft.

Short answer, NO. Longer answer: you are spot on about North Sydney and, for the big law and accounting firms, the right part of the Sydney CBD. Fyshwick is well located with the Adult Video industry (Porn) and some other light industry. I don't think that has been a positive or negative. I don't place any value on "Image". CASA, Dept of Transport and the Minister will be much more impressed by sound argument, good governance and safety record than grandiose premises.

 

5) Opportunity cost. As with any enterprise, any cost for one element means a reduction in the opportunity to invest that cost in another element. RAA exists ( or at least SHOULD exist - though one at times wonders whether this has been the guiding principle in its management at all times since its inception) - to serve the interests of its members. What is the mix of expenditure that maximises RAA's services to its members, and where in that mix does the cost/value equation of any form of HQ reside? The answer to that might well require Solomon-like wisdom, but it's not a question that can be answered without at least some consideration.

I see the move out of Canberra being a cost-saving exercise as well as "getting the fundamentals right". All that is needed for this exercise not to distract from the main game of getting systems right is management. Mark Clayton is going to need to delegate a great deal of the work on this project and in the systems area but keep in touch and in control of both. That is what managers do.

 

Don

 

 

KGW,

 

I salivate at the sound of RDBMS, etc. Reminds me of the real business world. Let's try and avoid SAP though our financial reserves would go up in a puff of German smoke.

 

Thing is though, the skills and experience set of people who could contribute to the proper systematization of RA-Aus and those of Members who are happy to kick around where we should be based and physically checking out the short list, are perhaps different skill sets - not mutually exclusive but different. Some of us could happily attack either but the Systems analysis, design selection and implementation does call on a specific skill set that is not resident in all RA-Aus amateur pilots.

 

That's my argument as to why we can do them both, simultaneously. It is not one or the other, in time we must do both projects - and probably a few more.

 

 

All the Special Resolutions, including one from Rod Birrell, have been printed in the March Edition of SportPilot at page 48. Seems there are no proxy forms included in the Magazine but you can always download the form from the RA-Aus website. The form is Appendix A to the Constitution. Better not to attempt to use Appendix C Postal Vote as they cannot be accepted due to the ACT legislation that overrules our Constitution.

 

 

OK Oscar, I'll have a go at the more difficult, less fun, question of "Why".

 

We need to think about two different time zones. One goes back decades and the other goes forward a decade or two.

 

We go back and have a look at the reasons RA-Aus HQ ended up in Canberra. It has been put to me by the people who were around then - thus just hearsay but I've got nothing better to go on or any reason to think they were being less than frank - that Canberra was chosen because there was a lot of lobbying going on with Federal Politicians and CASA all of which were based in Canberra. There may have been other reasons and perhaps some of the genuine veterans can enlighten us on that.

 

Lets wander forwards ten or 20 years and consider would we be better off then if we'd stayed in Canberra or set up a less expensive but more functional RA-Aus base in a more suitable location?

 

The cost and potential short term disruption of any relocation will not be insignificant when it happens but the cost will be amortised over many, many years and the disruption simply a thing of the past.

 

If we look at the big picture, having RA-Aus situated at the optimum location based on some carefully weighted criteria is the smart thing to do. It is a project that is not too time critical in the sense that is wasn't essential yesterday. But we don't want to just drift on with a high cost, low relevance location like Canberra. If this question had come up to look at early in 2013 when RA-Aus was in uproar and general disarray, it would very smartly (and wisely) been pushed aside.

 

We should congratulate Mark Clayton, RA-Aus GM, for having raised the question of where is the right place for RA-Aus to be housed - in/for the long term. Mark even suggested some useful criteria. Could you imagine his predecessor coming up with that sort of strategic, big picture, forward-looking thinking?

 

Kaz kicked off this thread intent on getting some thoughts on the table as to how you would judge where the optimum location is and some suggestions from our widely geographically-spread RecFlying contributors as to where they feel would be a good location. I think it is achieving all that with close to 100 posts on the subject already.

 

I think it is too easy to say there are other matters higher on the priority list. It just means we have more to get done - in parallel. We have vast resources of people amongst our 10,000 pilots and we are not so destitute that we can't afford to do it at any cost.

 

It is not unreasonable to me, to wonder if we were setting up an organisation like RA-Aus for the first time, where would be the best place for it to be based? Or in the correct order, what are the criteria by which we would choose where is the best place for RA-Aus to be located. Remaining in Canberra would be one of those options. It may have been the right place decades ago but that does not make it the right place now and definitely does not make it the right place to be 10 years from now.

 

I strongly favour the idea of a sub-committee reporting to Mark Clayton to come up with a definitive list of criteria with appropriate weightings. For example, access to high speed internet is probably more important than how close the nearest pub is. Being a good location for NATFLY is probably more important than access to RPT within 50 kms.

 

Once Mark has a clear favourite (or at least a short, shortlist) then he can get some work done on how a transition would be made and what that would cost and how disruption can be minimised.

 

Armed with all that Mark can then have the Cost/Benefits analysis done and you can even get into discounted cash flows, Net Present Values and what ever else you'd like to test the concept with. Then he can go to the Board with a thoroughly thought through, costed proposal for the Board to make the final decision.

 

But, if the project is never, never run, we'll never, never know and be stuck in Canberra forever. So, on this forum, lets just enjoy kicking some ideas around, fre-form, rather than dismiss the concept because RA-Aus has a few other trifling, short term issues .

 

 

The ASIC doesn't entitle you to access airside at an airport but it gives the airport management some comfort if it gives you access. So, the 20 questions doesn't seem unreasonable to me. In fact that makes more sense than the ASIC.

 

Of course flying in gets you airside but it is reasonable from a risk management aspect for there to be controls in place at busy airports. However, I don't rate Mudgee as a busy airport but you still need an ASIC there.

 

If I recall correctly, the ASIC popped up about 9 years ago in 2005. Systems were probably rushed in and perhaps were/are far from perfect - including those at RA-Aus. If an RA-Aus member doesn't like an aspect of the process then give your local Board Rep a job. There is a list of them in the magazine with contact details. You might be doing us all a favour. I'm sure we all realise that RA-Aus doesn't get the final say on all aspects of ASIC procedures.

 

One thing I can assure is that nobody on this website is going to change the list of who can sign off your application through RA-Aus. Not quite "tell somebody who cares" but "tell somebody whose job it is to do something about it".

 

Somehow, I would have thought that getting it done for $160 through RA-Aus is to be applauded.

 

 

Andy,

 

I agree with most of what you said except the bit about us (RA-Aus members) paying more for it. There is, as you know and have identified, a goldmine of economies available to RA-Aus with better systems. There is also the fact that a significant proportion of RA-Aus aircraft (including your own) operate on AVGAS - just like GA aircraft - and yet out of the $2.5+ million p.a. RA-Aus spends on administration, CASA kicks in about $100,000 p.a. This is patently, grossly unfair.

 

I wonder if we would have annual pilot Cert and Registration renewals if CASA paid their fair share of RA-Aus admin? GA don't have these "features". (We would still have to pay for our Magazine and Liability Insurance but why should we be paying for Admin?)

 

We have had, in my view, cheap and largely ineffective administration because in part at least, it has been on the cheap. If CASA had to administer 10,000 more pilots and 3,500 more aircraft, it would cost them more like $25 million than $2.5 million. There is no way they would ever want RA-Aus to collapse as they couldn't afford to do it themselves. Instead of $100k we should be getting at least $1 million p.a. from CASA on the basis of fair sharing the bounty they get from the AVGAS levy.

 

I, of course, do not know for a fact how much CASA gets from the levy on AVGAS consumed by RA-Aus pilots and the chances are they don't either. In the beginning, probably zero RA-Aus (then AUF) aircraft would have been fueled with AVGAS. But, things have changed, and yet there's no recognition from CASA that they are spending RA-Aus money hassling GA rather than defraying RA-Aus administration costs.

 

Don

 

 

Thank you Don! For those who are interested, it`s Rule 20vi not 20iv.... It appears to me,this rule more or less gives the board the power to do as they wish,within the constitution!... Full stop.I find it interesting that Kaz has said in post #13, "In my view, the Confidentiality Agreement is unenforceable as a contract because it doesn't meet the definition of one...offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations and VALUABLE CONSIDERATION". In post #17 "but it only has moral effect on a Board member"....... Following from that, I think the Confidentiality Agreement is nonsense.

 

Frank.

Correct Frank, apologies for my typo, it is as you say 20(vi)

And I think we all understand that the CA has no value.

 

 

Jim,

 

The first page or so blatting on about ATSB assistance for investigating accidents was offered to us on a plate by Martin Dolan in Feb 2012! The then President Runciman and then CEO Tizzard did not take up the limited time offer and it lapsed. The then staff (Tizzard/Tully) were known to not want the ATSB involved presumably because it would limit the ability of RA-Aus to punish the guilty.

 

The most fundamentally wrong thing about CASA is its failure to normalise the basis for Recreational Aviation. Currently we operate under a stack of exemptions where, was it Part 103, was to give us rights and obligations not the confusion that stems from exceptions to rules.

 

CASA's appalling failure on getting a simple, clear set of Regulations in place is enough to warrant the dismissal of the entire organisation. AS the AAAA points out the Year Book was the most incredibly cynical bit of Goebel speak I have read in many a long day.

 

We should be applauding the AAAA for stating what should be the bleeding obvious. Their proposed solution is brilliant!

 

 

With regard to priorities both in time and money we can afford to do both - that is, modernise the systems and set up RA-Aus somewhere that makes a lot more sense than Canberra. If we don't start doing a few things in parallel they will never get done. Why limit our ambitions when we have the cash reserves we have and there is a willing sub-committee prepared to roll up its sleeves and get things done. Admittedly, Committees have not been wonderfully successful in recent years (if ever) with one notable exception the fabulous team that puts on NATFLY each year. Previous Committees that have not got their job done is no reason to sit on our hands forever more.

 

The Committee that tackles the question of where best to permanently locate RA-Aus needs to be properly established with Project Sponsor, Project Manager and adequate resources in manpower and money i.e. a project schedule and project budget.

 

In the past it seems if you didn't want something to happen in RA-Aus you assigned the task to a Committee. That must change.

 

Keith Page, your optimism for future growth is admirable but I fear misplaced. There is some good evidence to show that membership numbers have plateaued or are possibly even in decline. There are some clear threats to future growth like aircraft owners sick of being stuffed around, like the RPL perhaps persuading GA pilots to stay GA rather than drop down to RA, like the less than stellar reputation of RA as an organisation to belong to and most importantly the like the aging demographics usually referred to as the greying of the baby-boomers.

 

The calls above for systems to smartened up is not just a nice-to-have but vital for RA-Aus survival - particularly if we have, as I suspect, a declining revenue stream. I doubt anyone would disagree with the notion that RA-Aus has managed its growth phase poorly. Growth has been accommodated by more office space, bigger filing cabinets and more staff. The office functioning look like something from the 1960s. RTing up and ask a question and somebody goes searching for a manilla folder.

 

Now, none of us are doing much other than decrying the current situation. The Board does not seem to be communicating even aspirations for the fixes we all see as vital. So, who's going to nominate for the Board and get these improvements on the Agenda?

 

 

If RA-Aus felt the need for a binding confidentiality agreement , and I'm on record as saying we don't need one, then it would have to take the form of a Deed. The reason we don't need one is well explained by Kaz. There are plenty of very nasty legal ramifications for anyone who breaches reasonable confidentiality.

 

On the nature of "confidentiality" one thing to bear in mind is that the need for confidentiality expires over time. Something that may be critically confidential today may cease to be at all confidential tomorrow. It is an extremely rare thing that has to remain confidential forever, e.g. formula for Coca-Cola

 

Board room discussions should remain confidential to the Board indefinitely but the outcome of those discussions including who voted in favour and who against is information vital to the proper working of a democratic body like RA-Aus.

 

During the development stage of the Ops Manual, the Board may have wanted to keep some aspects confidential from the old enemy (CASA) until they have finally decided it is worth trying it on with CASA. However, once they have a draft document that they are confident to pass to CASA for their approval, it should first be made available to all members for comment. Once CASA gives their consent to the Ops (or Tech) Manual it is a massive job to get them to change their mind.

 

Incidentally, nothing is confidential between RA-Aus and an individual member according to Rule 36 of our Constitution. Having seen the confidential information though the member then has a responsibility to maintain reasonable confidentiality.

 

Farri,

 

The Board is empowered by our Constitution (Rule 20iv) to " . . . subject to these Rules, make, amend or delete By-laws for conducting its own proceedings and general management of the Association's affairs." Requiring a Confidentiality Agreement (or Deed) fits with that power, however ill advised.

 

 

My experience with Westnet/iiNet has been absolutely brilliant. Think Telstra and then think 180 degrees opposite. You don't sit in a queue, you ring they say they're busy and they (an Aussie) rings you back. They stay on the phone as long as it takes to fix the problem. Then they ring you back ina couple of days to make sure all is still good. My wife and I have mobiles (SIMs) with them. $20 per month each and unlimited calls within the Westnet universe and ample + calls to everybody else. Use the mobiles for pretty well everything (not data) and never get extra charges.

 

We rarely use the landline and have been meaning to get rid of it and go "naked DSL". We get ADSL2+ and, being 400 meters from the exchange (800 metres along the wires) we get good speeds.

 

Telstra is still the maintainers of the copper so they can be as slack as usual if you get a line problem.

 

I use an iPad with a Telstra SIM ($180 p.a.) for best range. Amazed to find that when I didn't use all the data last year they carried over the leftover bit into the next year! My laptop never leaves my desk. I don't use my smartphone for internet - rather use the iPad. I have my Samsung TV plugged into my modem and operate the laptop WiFi. Internet TV (iView etc. )works as well as broadcast with no buffering once a program commences.

 

 

. . . Such technology should also be used for board meetings, so they can be more regular without directors having to head to ACT.

The Constitution currently requires two face-to-face Board Meetings each year. Neither have to be in Canberra. One has to be in conjunction with the AGM and the other in conjunction with NATFLY? Of course the Board may meet at other times at their discretion. They actually have an almost continuous "Board Meeting" via a private online forum (Board Members Only). Many decisions are taken via those meetings and result in formal Board Resolutions.

 

Meeting formally only twice a year is ineffectual. My belief is that they should meet formally on a quarterly basis. These meetings need not to be face-to-face but could be via Skype or equivalent. These Meetings should be short, sharp decision making meetings predicated on all Baord Members getting themselves fully briefed on all issues prior to the meetings. Briefed on Operational, Technical, Financial and Administrative matters via reports from the Managers through the General Manager.

 

Don

 

 

. . . what is the definition of confidential, and who decides what is confidential?

The Courts if it gets that far. An experienced, reasonable person is the test the Courts use and the same one that should tell you what is confidential. It has to do with unreasonable harm being caused by unwarranted disclosure. It can also relate to a person gaining an advantage by using confidential information not available to others - e.g. insider trading.

 

I am have signed so many confidentiality agreements over the years...but I haven't met one before which doesn't give SOME indication of what is confidential.

It is a matter for judgement - just hope that the person doing the judging is you and not some old codger wearing a white wig.

 

Don

 

 

. . . The current board doesn't seem to have a clue as to why we have $1.3 million in the bank.

This would be funny if it weren't so serious. You may recall that when I campaigned to be elected to the Board in 2011, it was because we were hearing rumours that RA-Aus was in serious financial difficulties. The Treasurer had been sacked by the Board because there had been no budget done for 20 months and no useful financial reporting. Steve Runciman took over as Treasurer and immediately raised membership fees as a precaution in case we were going broke until he could get a grip on the true financial situation.

 

You can imagine my surprise when six months later I got elected to the Board and then as Treasurer to find there was a very substantial sum tucked away in the vaults. When I asked the question "why", most of the Board looked surprised to hear that RA-Aus was not in immediate danger. The answer I got from one long serving Board Member was something to the effect that we had been putting money aside to buy an office building. But, by that time we already owned (outright) the building in Fyshwick. Next response was that we might want to buy our own aerodrome one day. At that stage I nearly fell off my chair in shock and horror at such a mad idea. Current thinking is probably along the lines of having a fighting fund to ward off litigation.

 

. . . Nobody has presented a good economic or administrative reason for moving to an airport particularly one not close to RPT or public transport nor articulated a plan of what RAA would do when it got there.

Col, you won't get any opposition to the idea that we should know why we would move out of Canberra. That is the first step before working out where we might prefer to be and then how the hell we manage the transition. If you add up the Board numbers, we have three that are Canberra (or thereabouts) residents. We have WA, NT, Tas and NQ who have zero chance of RA-Aus moving to their region. That in itself is a Board majority.

 

Until I get a clear reason for the big bucket of cash sloshing around I would be very worried about letting the board make any sort of decision.

I believe this is a decision for the people we elect to make such decisions. It is up to the General Manager to come up with a compelling cost/benefits case to make the move an economically viable capital expenditure project.

 

I can think of plenty of good reasons to not choose Canberra as the permanent home base for RA-Aus. I think you might agree that if you were about to set up a Recreational Aviation body in Australia that Canberra would come close to the bottom of any list of preferred locations. But that decision was taken long ago for reasons that may have been quite valid at the time. However, now we have the opportunity to consider where the best permanent home might be and whether the expense and disruption would be justified by the result.

 

 

Thanks Jim.

 

Yet again Jim has done what Board Members get elected to do - communicate (both ways) with RA-Aus Members.

 

Can't say that I admire the document's wording but the simple intent is fairly clear. There is nothing special or tricky about it. The document may or may not be enforceable at law but it simply doesn't matter. Why? Because Directors and people in positions of trust are required to maintain that trust. It would be a breach of a Directors Duty to use confidential information to their own advantage or disclose it to others without good cause. I believe that a Confidentiality Agreement is unnecessary for Directors. If anything, it is an aide memoire to a Director, reminding him/her of their duty. It removes the "I didn't know that excuse" which simply wouldn't work anyway.

 

In 2011 there was an attempt to get Board Members to sign a Confidentiality Agreement that went way beyond anything remotely reasonable as a part of the "Code of Conduct". Enough Board Members, including myself, refused to sign it and the nonsense condition was deleted.

 

If you don't understand "reasonable confidentiality" then you should not seek nor accept nomination for a responsible position like Board Member of any organisation.

 

 

Definitely needs to be west of the divide . . .

Why? Because of the weather West of the Divide or the difficulty crossing the divide?

 

If the problem is crossing the divide, then you would have it East of the Divide because vastly more members live East (or South) of the Divide than live West.

 

If it is because of drier weather West of the Divide we would need to look hard at the actual data and not go on anecdotal evidence. For example, I lived in Wagga for two years and there were many, many days when the fog didn't lift until 11 am or later and rolled in again around 3 pm. Evans Head is famous for heavy rain mainly because they have scheduled their fly-in for the sub-tropical wet season. Somewhere 50 kms from the Coast like Maitland (Rutherford) gets about 30" (750mm) of rain a year comparable with many locations West of the Divide. The issue with Maitland would be that most pilots heading for Maitland would need to cross the Divide, many twice! Access to the Hunter Valley from the West is via the Murrurundi Gap or over the Liverpool Ranges. These two places are famous for having fog (cloud) to the ground - but then that's just anecdotal.

 

. . . we need to make sure firstly that we are here to stay and secondly that the employees are happy to move/live in the nominated location.

.CASA has made it abundantly clear that they want RA-Aus and other SASAOs to continue. No doubt they would like to see a better standard of Administration and Governance than has been demonstrated in the last 5 years and they are insisting that they get that. We have to work on the basis that RA-Aus is here to stay and continue to lift our professionalism.

Currently, I understand that the Ops Manager works mostly from Temora and the Tech Manager similarly from Melbourne and to some extent would not be overly affected by RA-Aus moving out of Canberra. It is highly likely that some Staff would either not be in a position to make the move from Canberra or simply don't want to. The transition plan would need to address that issue. We may lose some staff and have to hire more in the new location. That is not the end of the world either for the Staff or RA-Aus. It is important though that the place RA-Aus relocates to offers opportunities for spouses/partners and children of staff to be able to obtain employment and/or appropriate education opportunities.

 

. . . Naromine might be a good place to visit for a few days but how many Raaus employees and their families would enjoy living there fulltime?

Narromine is a half hour drive from Dubbo a city of more than 30,000 people. Temora, a town of 4,000, on the other hand, is perhaps a lot more limited in these matters.

 

. . . And just to add another option why not think about just buying a property outside of a decent sized town and setting up a RAA airfield? Wouldn't take much to organise a little bus to shuttle to the major airfield 10 or 20 k's away and be on our own ul friendly strip.

RA-Aus must NEVER purchase and operate an airport. That would be an enormous distraction from our core accountabilities and a bottomless pit for Members' Funds.

 

How could we ever afford to match the airport facilities of even a modest Council owned airport let alone a Temora or a Narromine?

 

 

Andy,

 

You make some very good points. It had been my view as well that relocation to a permanent home at an airport was not top of the priorities. However, when Mark Clayton raised it in the Feb SportPilot I began to wonder if this is not a bloody good idea whose time has come.

 

Hard to know on the basis of info coming from the Board or Management but it seems most of the Aircraft Registration debacle is behind us. We are close to having new Ops and Tech Manuals and while there are plenty of other things the GM and Board Members can amuse themselves with like L1 Maintenance, there is no good reason a few good things can't happen in parallel.

 

This as a Project only needs Mark Clayton to take it on as the Project Sponsor and a competent Project Manager like yourself to organise the process and a few willing hands to the ground work and write reports. I believe a recommendation from Mark to the Board could be put to the Board Meeting at the AGM.

 

I don't see much point in running a plebiscite of all Members as the decision has to be correct rather than popularist.

 

I do see the permanent location of RA-Aus as a key part of the 5 year strategic plan that includes decisions on Board size and form and place of incorporation.

 

Getting to the optimum answer does not need to involve Rocket Surgery :-) just a sound process. In the end there are likely to be as few as five genuine candidates and choosing the optimum won't be the hard thing. Getting the transition planning correct will be.

 

I'm keen to see this project run.

 

Don

 

 

Armidale...

Armidale, NSW? Why? How would it go as a venue for NATFLY?

 

 

Nev,

 

I wouldn't have thought of Ballarat either but it has plenty to recommend it. A very pleasant city although winters are a bit brisk for some.

 

I do believe we will get out of Canberra and in our lifetime. Our GM is not committed to Canberra like the previous one and is interested in getting RA-Aus a better permanent base.

 

It seems to be inevitable that we will have a smaller Board and when its down to 7 or 5, how Board Members get to the Office becomes less important. The two Board Meetings currently mandated by the Constitution are required to be held in conjunction with the AGM and at NATFLY. We seem to have created the good "tradition" of supporting the SAAA's Ausfly by having our AGM at Narromine and with the other General Meeting scheduled for NATFLY, Board Meetings will be at Temora and Narromine for at least the next couple of years. Having our head office at either seems attractive.

 

Narromine has Dubbo just up the road for good RPT and cheap and plentiful accommodation at both Dubbo and Narromine. Narromine in fact has a great little motel at the airport - if you book a year or two in advance! I'm pretty sure it might once have been an Officers Mess - it certainly has that feel about it.

 

Temora is not that far from Wagga for RPT but hopefully NSW/Vic/Tas/SA/Sth Qld Board Memebrs fly themselves in.

 

The two Board Meetings are currently mandated by the Constitution to be in conjunction with the AGM and NATFLY. two but it is not unimaginable that Board Members could assemble at a Capital City airport for Board Meetings.

 

Nev, what would you think of Maitland, NSW (YMND) as the venue for RA-Aus Office and NATFLY?

 

Don

 

 

Kaz,

 

Griffith is one I wouldn't have thought of, off my own bat, but an interesting possibility.

 

The principal criteria, but certainly not the only one, is that the new home base should be accessible to the greatest number of RA-Aus pilots. Obviously, it would be hard to meet that criteria if the Office were located in WA, SA, NT, TAS or North QLD. That leaves Southern Queensland, Central and Eastern NSW and Northern Victoria.

 

The most obvious (to me) candidates are Temora and Narromine. Both are reasonably accessible from anywhere in NSW and most of Victoria and Southern Queensland.

 

But there are heaps of other interesting places that would have their own claim like the historic Evans Head, Cootamundra and Maitland (NSW). And then there are airports in Southern Queensland that would provide convenient access to and from the CASA Sport Aviation Office if not to Victorians.

 

There is going to be no location that suits everyone and so we need to be looking for an "optimum" rather than an absolute "best" location.

 

Let's try to avoid being too parochial - kind of the opposite of NIMBY (not in my back yard) and see if we can contribute to the debate of where is the optimum location for RA-Aus and very importantly - WHY?

 

 

But do we need an airport to operate our business?

Col,

It's true that we didn't have one in Fyshwick and things still happened - well sort of.

 

The beauty of being located at an airport is that everyday the Staff come to work they are reminded exactly why RA-Aus exists.

 

Members being able to fly-in reinforces that the HQ is there for the members.

 

We could, in time, establish both training facilities and bunk house accommodation for fly-in pilots and maintainers.

 

We could have a permanent home for NATFLY. Think how much easier NATFLY would be to stage if the Staff were headquartered at the place where NATFLY happens. At the moment they have a 2.5 hour drive from Canberra to Temora and if NATFLY returned to Narromine, that would blow out to 4.5 hours. If NATFLY is at the same location as the RA-Aus Office, Staff don't have to be away from home for all of Easter each year.

 

But an airport is just one of many considerations and the type of airport has many sub-categories and features.

 

 

. . . Just my 2 bob's worth but the Notice of the AGM must include ALL motions to be determined at the meeting. Motions from the floor or proposed AFTER the date of the Notice cannot be accepted.

Not just your two bob's worth, timb, but those are the Rules in the RA-Aus Constitution now and they will still be if these proposed amendments are successful.

 

The thrust of these amendments is to get information to the Members before the AGM, not during the AGM. Members so armed can come to the AGM fully informed and able to ask intelligent questions, especially of the Board Executive. The amendments will also give Ordinary Members an opportunity to get an item on the Agenda that they could not, as you say, raise from the floor.

 

All in all, we should have quicker, better informed AGMs if these amendments are passed.

 

Don