Spriteah

To change our constitution ie: board make up needs 75% vote. It needs member input and consultation or it will not get supported. Jim

FC, that is what occurred when I first got on the board. Imagine trying to consult with 13 on every board worthy issue. At least 7 will make that about half the task. Jim.

Update: both the tech and ops manuals are being worked on as we speak. They are well on there way to completion. Jim.

FC, on a positive note I can say the last board meeting was very refreshing and the board functioned well as a team and disciplined constructive discussions were the norm. Jim.

Firstly, there is no new model. This is a direction we are looking at and seeking input from the membership. Secondly, of recent times the board has been very involved in the management of the RAA. It has contributed to the situation we now find ourselves in. The organisation has expanded so quickly the board has not. At present the elected representatives are voted in by popularity which effectively means you "can" get a group that want to assist the organisation but have little time to commit and or lack skills to assist in areas of importance. That are the issues we are trying to address. With 13 members on the board any decision that needs to be made takes about three weeks. That is three weeks the office manager waits for direction. Food for thought. Jim.

Lost me here Keith, what has the board selection got to do with technical matters? Jim

Maj, Process is that the crc will eventually put recommendation to board. Board puts to membership via Agm. 75 % vote required to pass same. Jim.

Sorry for the delayed reply. The committee is not only board. Lyn Jarvis, Paul Middleton, Michael monk, ed herring. There is another I think. How people are elected and if the are on a committee has nil relevance in my opinion. I think state representation limits the effectiveness of the board. Again my view. Jim

RAAus Members, Recently members of the Constitution Review Committee and the Executive met and discussed our future organisational structure. Below is a summary of what was considered. One model consisted of a large group of 13 people being elected by the members who then select, among themselves, a subset of five people to form the board. Different views were held as to what responsibilities each group would have with some views saying the larger group would be policy oriented and the smaller group be tasked with implementation. This idea would, however, create confusion between the roles of the two boards and management. A slight variation on the first model was also suggested where the larger group doesn’t play any active role in the organisation other than to appoint the smaller board. The smaller board would then govern while management manages. This would create issues with the larger board being elected but not doing anything. The model that was arrived at in the end was a much simpler one. It simply consisted of a 7 member board elected by members to set policy and strategy for the organisation. The model is well accepted in the outside world (both non-profit and for profit orgs use this structure) and has proven to be effective. Furthermore, it was noted by several people that members have expressed a strong desire to reduce the size of the board so it meets this requirement as well. Also discussed were options to improve the selection of candidates for the board to attract the right group of people. Ideas included selection criteria, limiting the number of any particular interest group on the board, requiring a high hurdle for nomination. These ideas have been employed successfully elsewhere (e.g. RAA in SA requires nominees to have the support of 50 members before being nominated while Choice sets out selection criteria in terms of skills and experience). No method was chosen as the preferred option and further discussion is required on this point before any proposal is made. In general, the plan is to begin socialising the idea of change to the members and gauge the opinion of the membership. Once finalised the revised structure would be written into the constitution in accordance with the processes outlined in our current constitution. I have placed this communication on the forums so members can consider what is being discussed and make any comments that I will take back to the board. If you have any idea's as the best way to select the board members I would like to hear them. If we move towards a smaller board it will be paramount that those elected are skilled and prepared to contribute. There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done by those that are elected. I look forward to hear your ideas and feedback. Regards and safe flying. Jim Tatlock Victorian Board Representative.

Thanks admin. Saved me from posting it. Jim T

Report I saw said it was a cessna182. Not sure if accurate.

Fee increase of $25 per year is 50 cents per week. 25% of a cup of coffee (take away) per week. Why? We are spending more than we are generating to combat the problems of the past. We will invest now to strengthen the organisation for the future. We are also looking at other income streams to offset loss. Yes we have some money in the bank but it would be unwise to leave our organisation without a contingency fund. I hope to see us return to profit in the next 24 months. Possibly even this financial year (but that is less likely). Turbo: Successive Treasurers haven't addressed the split up of costs logged to the vague titles (or haven't published a reconciliation). Because Natfly and the magazine don't have separate profit/loss reports, members don't know how much of their fees may be going into these. I address these very issues at the AGM and are included in my presentation. Didn't you read it? Regards and safe flying, Jim Tatlock.

Fellow Members. This was sent to the board by Ross at 1108hrs today: Hi Mark, Could you please advise if the vacant position of Tech Manager has been advertised through a recruitment agency, or is there an intention to do so. I am under the impression that this was decided to be the future normal course in filling a vacant paid excutive position, in view of past inadequecies in filling positions from 'in house', in particular with respect to the experience with your predecessor. Your current position was filled by going through the recrutment process, as you would be aware, and appears to be working suitably at this point. Looking foward to your reply...............Regards Ross Millard. 010233 Sent from my iPad I replied the following at 1206hrs today: Ross, I am unsure as to if Mark has responded however I will provide you with what I know. The position has not been advertised. It will be in the future, when I cannot say. How it is filled will be up to Mark. Regards, Jim Tatlock. This is obviously an operational matter and will be left to the General Manager to action when he see's fit. My personal belief is it should be advertised and I hope that will occur. When is more a matter of what is the best timing. Currently we are receiving excellent service from Darren in the role as a temporary appointment. Regards and Safe flying, Jim Tatlock Vic State Rep...

http://www.mcp.com.au/xair/manuals/manuals.html Try that link. Jim.

Hmmm. Purchase for transport reasons. As in commercial? I'd still go RAA. Then cross to ga when you need to. Should save you some money. Regards, Jim Tatlock.

Historically our clerks work a few years then return to further study. If we went to a electronic system it would not mean sackings as opposed to not replacing staff upon leaving. On a more positive note. Let's expand and require the same number of staff to run a larger organisation!! That's where I want to be heading. Jim Tatlock Victorian RAAus rep and current treasurer.

September 10, 2013 | Mark Clayton The best spot from which to view the air display action at AUSFLY will be from the exclusive member’s only marquee right at the front of the spectator area. RA-Aus has contributed to this facility so RA-Aus members can enjoy the best views (and some complimentary refreshments) in comfort. Simply confirm your R-AAus membership (e.g. by showing your Pilot Certificate) when you register upon arrival at AUSFLY.

The two year issue is on the board meeting agenda and many are in favour. Jim.

DWF has been sent an email from me and some other board members answering many of the above questions. He may wish to post the replies for all to see. If he does I apoligies in advance for my typo's. Regards, Jim Tatlock.

Maj and Keith, You are both on the money so to speak. The non-renewal collate with the GFC and the registration issues. Our non-renewal figures are much higher that most anticipated (this data has been hiding in our database and not easily accessable). Now we now what they are my next project will be to work on retention and return of members. I have asked Ian to upload the file here if he got my email. Jim PS. We have funds to survive a few years. The next year will run at a loss however I hope that we have stategies to reduce the second half of 13-14.

RAAus Members The financial report I will be presenting at the AGM is now up on the members portal for download. I attempted to place it here but the forums server blocks it due to size. Feel free to download it and share. If you have any questions ask here or email me. Regards and Safe Flying, Jim Tatlock RAAus Victoria Rep and Current Treasurer.

A great job. He really loved to keep his hand on throttle. I think I would to. And at landing look how tense left hand is. I take it as the prop not windmilling he had no desire to try and restart.

Oscar, I can assure you at the office our resolve is to be fully compliant with the regulations and exemptions of regulations. This is more so at the present moment than ever before. Approaching compliance in a flexible manner was clearly what has occurred in the past and got us into the current mess we face. The interests of the RAA are not at odds with compliance. If they ever were it was misguided by individuals and not the organisation. I'd like to point out that many of the non-compliance issues we are dealing with have been inherited from previous managers. A legacy if you will. Our focus not is to not continue to make further errors in the registration process and 'fix' all the past indiscretions. I would not endorse removing a manager that was competent, performing well but 'not allowing rules to be broken'. I think that is the implication you were leading to in your post. In relation to your comment "Unfortunately, I have to say that the recent performance of the Board/Executive is as transparently obvious as lead and as polished as moss on a rock" I take it both the President and myself are tarnished with the common brush. I am hoping the majority of members will give us a go. I have been and continue to be an advocate for honest and open communications. I have encouraged members to call and communicate with me and other board members. Far too many untruths circulate through the forums, however, that is the electronic communication world we live in. It's easy to throw rocks when you are hundreds of KM's away. I think I might now cease comments on this thread. I feel I have contributed all I can at the present time. Safe flying all. Jim Tatlock RAAus Vic Representative.

Andy, The concept of regular audits in high on my to do list. Although having a technically competent person conduct the audits is ideal, as you suggested I do not think impeative. If during an audit you discover so abnormal data this can always be looked into by a competent person in the specific field. Worksafe audit in this fashion regularly. Look, ask questions, not convinced, further research, discuss with regulator and eventually the truth and discovery. I think your suggestion could easliy work. As to RAAus implementing a system. I would hope we capture it with the upgrading of the SMS. Regards, Jim Tatlock. Vic Rep RAAus.

Maj, The full board was party to a meeting in regards to the Technical Manager which lead to the current situation. From what viewpoint do you suggest "Sorry, but from the imput I received on the Wayne affair it didn't look like teamwork was well exercised in this case........................"? If any current board member has indicated they were not informed or not consulted they are not being forcoming with facts. Obviously the decsion that was made was done with the RAAus interest first (above the person). Not at all taken lightly. Regards, Jim Tatlock RAAus Victroian Representative.