DonRamsay

G'day Old K,

The Central Coast Aero Club manages YWVA for the local Council (Wyong). The work is shared between the Club and the separate flying school (Warnervale Air). Doesn't stop the Council from charging landing fees even though the club saves them a motza. At least the Council is now kicking in a few bucks on the upgrade.

YMND is owned and operated by RNAC and I doubt it costs the Council anything other than a bit of grief over noise complaints.

YCNK is owned by Cessnock Council and some activities are managed by either the GA flying school or the Hunter Recreational Flying School. Council still charges landing fees.

If your local Council wants to defray the annual upkeep costs, you might have a look at some things the club can do like mowing which can be a sizeable cost. As well, their needs to be some thought put into having events that attract big spending aviators, classic car enthusiasts (not dragsters or truck racers!!!) and the locals to come and spend money at the airport. Increased air traffic, as you point out, is not going to make an appreciable difference to the annual cost of operating the airport.

Perhaps organising charter flights to holiday destinations might bring in some commercial money?

Perhaps local Chamber of Commerce or Service Clubs might have some ideas?

Jim, In answer to your five questions, let me start with Q4 and then work through the rest.

Question 4 - Optimum Board Size.

There is an old Business Law that goes along the lines of "The duration of a meeting is directly proportional to the square of the number attending the meeting." Thirteen Board members is silly even on a theoretical basis and owes its creation to a failed attempt to even up numbers of Board Members per region. It has absolutely nothing to do with practical Board operation. In practice we know it doesn't work. In my experience there were more coasting than there were rowing the boat. Some were downright Sally Robinsons - impeding the few that were rowing hard. Whenever I have this discussion with people who have the education and experience to know, the answer almost always comes down to the magnificent SEVEN. More than that just slows the Board processes for no real benefit. Fewer than that and you do start to lose the more heads are better than one effect. With the right people you could run with five but we would need to have a mature organisation and an excellent management team to go there. RA-Aus is a very immature organisation despite its 30 year history. There is evidence in the form of Daffyd LLewellyn that it has become less mature over time.

Question 3 - Do we need Regional Representation?

Not wanting to disagree with Andy nor agree with Maj I still have to answer YES to this question. However, we need to look at what constitutes a Region. A region might be bounded by a common language, common aviation laws, common laws of physics and common interests. That means to me that we only need one region in Australia and that is Australia. The only use for State Boundaries was clearly identified above - to make football games more interesting. State Boundaries are something we fly over without a second glance other than at our watches because some fool let the States make up their own rules about what time it is! How on Earth could that have happened? To get regional representation and feedback to and from the Board we need a system of chapters that can be in manageable sized regions and nothing the size of Queensland or WA.

Question 1 & 2 - Board Selection Criteria and Targeted Skill sets.

These are too closely intertwined to look at separately. Boards of successful organisations do bring a range of skill sets together. How they do that varies considerably. The way we can do it is very limited by our democratic process that rules out, I believe, having prerequisites to be eligible to run. I don't believe we need to set prerequisites if we go about the election of key Board spots well. The way we can do it is to directly elect the two positions that require strong non-aviation skill sets, viz., Secretary and Treasurer. Any member should be allowed to run for either of these positions directly. Their published election statement should set out their particular education, training and experience that makes them a good choice. Members are smart enough to choose between or amongst candidates based on this information plus whatever else they can find out. The leader of the Board should be a Chair not a President to get away from the "Supreme Commander" problems experienced with Runciman then Herring and now, to an extent, Birrell. The Chair should be elected from within the Board and be backed up by a Vice Chair similarly elected by the Board. So, now we have a Chair and Vice Chair, a Secretary and Treasurer and three more Board Members without a specific portfolio. For the Board to be successful, there could be a number of standing sub-committees to concentrate on particular segments of our business and advice the rest of the Board. There would be no room for passengers (bludgers) as there is now on a 13 person Board.

Question 5 - Anything else?

Well, if the Secretary and Treasurer are directly elected by all RA-Aus members regardless of their postcode that leaves 5 more positions to be elected. How? First, we need to understand how undemocratic and unrepresentative and therefore how unfair the current system is. Let's look at the current regions and number of members in each as published in the October SportPilot. The table in SP shows that in all of QLD there are 2,492 members. They elect 4 Board Members. That means there is one Board Member for each 623 Queenslanders. Compare that with the NT who get a Board member for each 90 people or Victoria who get a Board Member for each 1,130 Victorians. The split up for FNQ is not shown but I imagine the jerrymander in their favour is as bad or worse than for the NT. I've often thought that the current regional election basis is actually illegal. It is unquestionably unrepresentative and unfair.

So, if the present system is crap what would be better? Answer is almost anything else.

ALL Board Members, regardless of where they are from or who elected them are obliged to do the best for RA-Aus and not their Region. That is the LAW and it is also enshrined in the RA-Aus Constitution. So Regional Representation is a 24 carat myth.

One more myth regarding Members Representatives. They are not entitled to take a members grievance to the General Manager and argue the case of their constituent. That would be an abuse of Office and corrosive to sound management practice. Members can expect their representative to carry their policy preferences to a Board Room and that is about it.

Col, CASA have put some tight timelines on us for the documents so the general membership will not get the draft. The intention is the tech manual will be regularly updated so members can have input at any time. It's not idea and not our making.Jim.

Sorry to be so late to the discussion on this and hope I'm not repeating what others have written but I have to say that something as important as the Ops and Tech Manuals can not be left to the Staff and/or one or two Board Members. To think that that is in any way, for any reason, acceptable is plain poor logic and bad manners.

There must be a time made for these documents to be distributed in draft form as notices of proposed rule making even if it is just a week or two. CASA must be made to accept that proposition as it is their own standard practice. CASA do NPRM, I suspect, not just to have their work checked before it is carved in stone but to get acceptance. If people have had the opportunity to contribute to Rule Making but don't then they have no comeback. What loyalty do people have to Rules that are thrust upon them by a few? What chance of bad Rules coming into being? ONce a Rule is in place CASA have shown they are very reluctant to allow its repeal - e.g. Aircraft Condition Reports. RA-Aus Board tried to get rid of them but CASA said NO regardless of the fact that they are not declarations of airworthiness and thus add nothing to air safety.

Clearly I am no expert in this area but there are a couple of things one could deduce. Firstly, an RA-Aus registered J230 with a design MTOW of 700kg is unlikely to have ever been flown close to its MTOW. Combine that with your view that it is well constructed in the first place and it would seem to me that you have an aircraft likely to do well compared to most others regarding fatigue life. But even a J230 will get to the geriatric stage one day.

If you apply the same logic at the other end of the Jab scale, a J120 with an MTOW of 500kg that, quite possibly, is frequently flown above its design MTOW could you have a significant fatigue issue much earlier?

And then there is the exposure to UV - kept in a hangar or outdoors?

We have Jabiru celebrating its 25 years in the air on the cover of the October SportPilot and we certainly don't hear much (anything?) about Jab structural issues in their older aircraft. That has to be encouraging. Now, if only the engines . . .

Don, I entirely agree apart from one point: I suggest it is not LAME maintenance that RAA needs to match (no hope of that; you'd have to go a fair way towards what is in CARs Part 4 &4A); but the GFA system - which would be a practical possibility. I strongly suggest you talk to Trevor Bange on this subject.

I was not suggesting we try to match LAME but that if we had L2 taken away then that's all that's left.

Fortunately for us all Trevor Bange is now on the Board and I'm happy to leave that techo stuff to him and stick to counting beans and having my aircraft looked after by the best L2 I can find. We are very lucky in the Hunter Valley to have an exceptional one in Keith Rule.

RAAus tech manual sect 4.1 say's it is.

2. Four levels of RA-Aus Maintenance Authority may be granted to RA-Aus

members:

c. Level Three: for suitable persons to act as regional supervisors, coordinators and

points of contact for maintenance activities.

If RA-Aus is to be able to logically argue that L1 and L2 maintenance should continue as it is then it has to have reasonable evidence that this is a safe system of maintenance compared with the fully "professional" LAME system.

There is I would suggest, zero evidence to support L1 maintenance other than there has not been a statistical trail of carnage related to poor L1 maintenance (although Jabiru engine maintainers might be proving otherwise). The lack of failures due to poor L1 maintenance may have more to do with luck and the fact that pretty well everyone over 50 has lived through a time when car engines were simple and owner maintenance was typical.

Compare then the young person coming to Rec Flying who has never as much as changed a spark plug on a lawnmower who assiduously learns to fly and is awarded L1 maintenance privileges with zero knowledge/skill testing.

How often in recent years have L2s had to do the maintenance equivalent of a BFR? How many got their L2 as a sweetheart deal with an obliging Tech Manager? I know of one L3 (a former long-serving Board Member) that I wouldn't let near my lawnmower (if i owned one).

Professionalism is something that, unfortunately, we don't automatically associate with RA-Aus, the organisation that has administered amateur aviation for 30 years. Like it or lump it, if RA-Aus does not become professional we will lose the privileges that were so hard won by the pioneers - albeit in easier times.

Like FactHunter and others have said, without owner (or L2) Maintenance RA-Aus loses its reason for being.

RA-Aus has an obligation to its members to continually provide CASA with the comfort of knowing Recreational Aviation is being administered with a high regard for and achievement of practical safety. We have not done that, I would suggest, for much of the last few years. And who knows that better than Lee Ungermann and his boss Jonathan Aleck?

Teckair, Wayne has a very small group with whom he communicates and from whom he hears advice. Not unprofessional just wise. If Wayne were posting on here then you might have a sustainable argument. Clearly, he has chosen not to while the matter is between the parties.

I am confident that good sense will prevail in this matter from both sides although it has taken a hell of a lot of time to get done. There remains just one issue to resolve and wheels are in motion for the matter to be put to bed once and for all. I'm content that those wheels turn without our assistance.

Al, you speak a lot of good sense and obviously from experience.

Unfortunately, I've worked in industries that have peaks and troughs and the worst feeling is retrenching people at Christmas - always seems to happen them. I always aim to be on the low side for permanent staff. It is true that some temps/consultants don't necessarily have the same commitment but professional ones come close.

Unless there is a major turnaround in the management of Recreational Aviation at ALL levels, it is a declining business. Our membership numbers tell us that sad tale now with a downward trend established. The RPL will not do anything to reverse that trend nor will putting the fees up at the time the "free" RPL is introduced.

RA-Aus has not shown it could manage well when it was getting easier with more members every year to spread costs over. How will we go with falling numbers and reducing revenue?

We need to spend money to get the efficiencies in quickly. We have some good staff but they already have a full time job and don't necessarily have wide experience. Consultants can bring that experience and our good people can run the show as the consultants walk away.

Yes I do, THE BLOODY TRUTH!!!!!

There was a brief SWOT exercise done by the Board in Feb 2012. Don't know if anything ever came of it. Agree with your post KGW 100%.

For the last year not much has been done other than working on the Rego debacle and sacking Tech Managers. There is a clear intent from the new Board to get into some proper strategic planning. However, It's hard to remember that you set out to drain the swamp when the crocs are biting you on the butt!

At that point Don we would all be GA again with huge maintenance bills, useless maintenance releases, totally long extended training regimes producing few pilots each year, boring Aero Clubs, and pilots who think they had a big year only affording 5 hours flying ! .......which is exactly what we changed when we started flying ULs years ago.Then we could send the 400 kg. gorilla a jar of Vaselene a week with the request that he use it, and just do us gently please.......that is if there is any one around left to do !..............Maj.........

The RPL should be much the same to obtain as a Pilot Cert as that is the way it is now. Build it yourself and maintain it yourself as per SAAA. The only thing missing is the L2 maintenance and losing that would be very bad. I don't have a lot of faith in L1 maintenance with no training required.

If CASA were to mandate the Drivers Licence Medical (Aviation) for Recreational Aviation, replace the Pilot Certificate with the RPL (issued once and not annually renewable), registered recreational aircraft once with no renewals and annual/100 hourly airworthiness checks the only role left to RA-Aus would be as an advocacy.

There is not much CASA has to do to make RA-Aus superfluous. If you don't want that to happen then you have to respect the reasonable wishes of the 400 kg gorilla.

Sometimes I wonder why they bother . . . I imagine the director must sometimes wonder as well.

Turbs, after 180 posts the carpet must be sitting pretty high off the floor by now with all those comments seeping under the carpet. Do you really believe there is something new to be said?

Are you trying put the fire out in a diplomatic manner?

.

Not putting the fire out - that can only happen when the issues are mutually resolved by the parties with, perhaps, some assistance from the courts.

Wayne is a friend and I would be uncomfortable in his position having this discussed ad nauseam on a semi-public forum.

Just being considerate . . .

Al,

The problem with putting on more employees is that the demand for hands and feet (or more importantly skills and capability) is temporary. The object of the improvements is improved efficiency which means fewer inputs for a given output. When the improvements are finished and working RA-Aus will need fewer staff not more. For a temporary increase in workload you need temporary staff.

And there will be no need for charging members more if costs come down with improved efficiency. The capital investment that is required to get the improvements can easily be paid for out of the substantial financial reserves of RA-Aus without increasing the grab from members wallets.

???

or

new thread?

Maj,

I agree with your three points above and I particularly like the third one but there it could produce issues with numerous Board Members saying different things 0n a given issue which could add more to confusion than to clarity. I'm not saying there should be no dissenting views or minority verdicts but we can't have multiple spokespersons for the agreed Board position.

I think the point Andy is making is that we need to get done a lot more than any one human being could do if he worked flat out for 24 hours a day, seven days a week . Mark Clayton has been putting in some long days and weekends. There is no question in my experience about his work ethic or capability.

I won't comment on Mark's dealings with Wayne because I do not know the full facts and I am happy to leave that between those who do have the full facts to sort it out. However, in all my other dealings with Mark and I've had a few, I have found him to be courteous, professional and direct. I think he has a good grip of the politics and works to stay out of that side of things.

The criticism of previous administrations "Years of Neglect" revolve around the performance or more correctly perceived lack of performance particularly by the previous CEO. Nobody ever doubted Steve Runciman's commitment to the task. Criticisms of Steve had more to do with his "command and control" style approach and his endless defence of the CEO of the time regardless, it seemed to me, of the CEO's achievements or lack of achievements. And, as we all know, the issues that plague us now could well have originated back in the days when Middo would have been General Manager.

We cannot afford "prioritisation". We can not wait for jobs to be done sequentially, we need to do lots of good stuff - simultaneously. We can't wait for 12 months to get all the regos sorted and then move on to the next target for improvement. We need to do them all and the deadline is yesterday.

To get done what we need to have done, we need specialist advice from professionals. Call them consultants if you like but consider them first as specialists with special skills and capabilities. RA-Aus does not have ANY IT specialists on the payroll. I think it is better to pay a lot for a specialist for a short while and get the quality outcome we need in the time frame we need it than to pay an employee forever with lesser quality outcomes because he/she can't be a specialist in everything and can only do one thing at a time.

Keith, - why ask people here who know no more than you do about the SMS? If you want the facts ask your Members Rep on the Board - that's their job. It would be better if communication from the Board on such a crucial issue were more forthcoming but, if it isn't, and you really want the facts - ask those who have the facts.

If, on the other hand, you just want to illustrate the fact that the Board is not communicating well with the Members regarding progress with the SMS, then why not just say that?

We should appreciate that Wayne is a big boy and quite capable of looking after his own best interests and is doing just that. On the other hand, Mark Clayton and the Board have adequate backup and resources to come to a proper accommodation with Wayne. My vote is that we now leave this to the affected parties.

I don't believe that any further discussion here is going to add value to the process. Just mho.

My concern is that RA-Aus has suffered from a penny-pinching attitude and a great lack of ambition to do things better smarter and to drive down the costs of the organisation per member.

The Board need the advice of a smart management consultant to identify a number of projects that will drag RA-Aus into the 21st Century. At the moment office systems at absolute best look like manual/computer assisted systems from the 1970s.

Paper and telephones need to be replaced with digitised records and online net-based systems. Each of these projects will need clear goals, project champion and project manager. The Project Managers will need resources. Projects on completion need post implementation reviews to build skills into RA-Aus in running improvement projects.

The GM cannot possibly be the Project Manager of the half-dozen or so urgent projects that RA-Aus needs to get done.

RA-Aus needs to be much more ambitious and embrace much shorted deadlines that are real deadlines.

We have the basis now of a sound Board. I'm happy to give them my support. But, they need to inject a great sense of urgency. Things cannot be allowed to take as long as they take. Things need real drive. They need to be in the mainstream not chasing windmills like buying airports or building hangars.

In my humble view we wasted 4 years with a CEO who I could not see made much of a difference to anything. We have a willing and capable GM but he must be given the resources and the encouragement to get lots done not just pressure to do stuff. We need the GM to manage multiple Project managers not get bogged down doing too much himself.

Don

p.s. As an example to back up my claim of penny-wise pound ($2 for those who don't remember 13th Feb 1966) foolish consider that in February 2012 the written down value of all computing equipment for RA-Aus was less than $3,000!

RA-Aus commissioned a re-write of its website for $13,000 back in 2010 or possibly 2011 and it rambled on for 18 months and achieved nothing. It had nobody driving the project and it failed to deliver.

RA-Aus must do a lot better than that if we are to get out of the dark ages we currently find ourselves living through.

It might not be in Chart Form but anyone who reads it simply needs to add the entire Board (as an entity not individual members) sitting immediately above the General Manager and you have the org structure for RA-Aus. It is not so complex.

In a recent amendment to the Constitution it was spelled out that the Board Executive comprising the President, Secretary and the Treasurer is a sub-committee of the Board and answerable to the Board. As I often pointed out to Runciman the Executive is the servant of the Board not its commander. The President's only duties are as Chair of Meetings and to relay the view of the full Board as Spokesman for the Board. The President does not speak for the Board but relays the sentiments, thoughts and conclusions of the Board to the world at large. There is no place for the President's view other than as one of 13 members of the Board.

Well I wouldn't mind shouting lunch for Steve Bell, Adam Finn and Waye Matthews and hearing their side of the story. I'd even invite Lee Ungerman along for some variety. Anyone care to chip in for the lunch bill?Perhaps invite Paul Middleton along to provide some balance?

Thanks Don. You should view the results with some personal pride. One never gets everything first go. Thanks to all the others who kicked in their efforts too.Bags full of UNDIRECTED proxies are a corruption. At any special or Annual GM all the agenda items are known so anybody can state how the want their proxy vote cast on any matter, so take ONLY DIRECTED proxy votes. Australia is a big place and not all interested people can get to these meetings. I wonder IF those who gave Herring their proxies would agree with the way he used those proxies, in all cases. I doubt it. Nev

Thanks for your efforts Don. It was a good result.

It seems like certain people were very active in obtaining proxies for only a few specific resolutions. The total vote count for each resolution varied between 236 and 270 so there were either abstentions at the meeting (& if so why bother being there) or some proxies had no opinion on some of the resolutions.

The one thing I'd like to see changed in the future is the Proxy system being revoked and only postal voting and actual attendance votes being allowed. The possibility of undue influence and the inability to verify proxies easily are the very reasons why (when the model constitution was written under the NSW Associations Incorporation Act 2009), they were specifically not permitted under Clause 33. The act specifically states that postal voting must be allowed (as well as it being specified in Clause 34 of the model constitution) and, as the Act must be complied with and holds precedence over all Incorporated Associations constitutions, it is a strong recommendation that Proxy voting be removed.

Thanks for a concise report, Don. (I had to leave before the legal advice item came up.) Also a huge thank you for your tireless work to reform our association.I had a great flight home, with 20-30 knot tailwind up high. My ground speed was like a big fast aeroplane, but the turbulence on descent was a reminder just how little it really is!