Aerochute Kev

You will be shYou will be shortly. The board needs regular upgrades to govern, that's our job.............Maj....

It is also the Boards job to keep the members informed. So far the Board is failing.

I feel so much better Maj, knowing that great things are going to happen in the future. As we still get nothing but hot air and promises I just hope I am still alive to see all this greatness.

If the Board is getting regular updates, why aren't we?

As the RAA websites "latest" registration update info is from Jan 2014, (6 months ago) perhaps its time that one of our Board reps on here requested a full explanation from the CEO of the current situation and why renewals are taking so long. then request that info be updated on their website.

I agree with some of what you say Nev, but you dont buy a dog and turn it loose without having any control over it. Our current system allows us to vote for a Rep but then not have a system of keeping them accountable or knowing what they are doing. The only thing we can do if they screw up is not vote for them next time. Not a very good way to run any business or organisation I would think. New Reps have in recent times promised to change the world and have not only failed to do so but are unable to say why things cant change. This is the primary reason I still believe we need a complete new Board. By changing just a few at a time they are still locked into the old way of doing things. I am not saying all of the Board are bad, just that there is enough of the "old guard" left to influence and ensure things cannot happen the way they should. We will probably still be having the same problems in 3 years time if we continue to change only a few reps at a time like we seem to be doing.

Its hard to argue things are getting better when the basic roles RAAus is there for (registration and administration) still cannot be done accurately or in a timely manner.

I'm not sure that is the answer Tech, as mostly we dont know what the issues are until we read about the the decisions that have been made on our behalf, usually months later. The proposed Ops manual is a prime example, we cant see it so dont know what questions to ask. If the Reps actually communicated with members on the issues they were dealing with I'm sure alot more members would contact them with their views. They have access to the RAAus website to provide information, they just need to use it.

It is not reasonable to expect all members to contact their Reps on a regular basis to find out what is happening. That will only provide information to one member. There needs to be a regular update on the website of current issues.

The Reps are not just there to make decisions on our behalf. They are also there to communicate to the Board the views of the members they represent. They cant communicate members views if they dont tell anyone what they are doing in order to get any feedback.

I think the current system of operating has been deliberately designed to minimise any input from members.

When any Board member proposes any changes now all he gets is the views of a handful of people in the same position he is in, a Board member. The secrecy ensures that. Any proposal put to the members through an electronic voting scenario is simply CONSULTATION, which is probably the easiest way for the Board to consult with a large number of members very quickly. If out of approx 10,000 members, 400 voted on any proposal and 350 were in favour and 50 against, RAAus would then have a very good sample of the memberships views on that proposal. I would consider that to be very good consultation, which Board members have a duty to do but are not currently doing. The Board members can use that sample to guide their decision making process.

Consultation was a big platform when some of these Board members were elected but seems either too hard to do or unimportant now!

I think Rich has a good point. We have voted in new Board members and whilst we are getting a bit more information the systemic problems are still there. A LITTLE bit more information but what as actually changed? The membership fees still rise (with no increase in service) and a million or so in the bank, that no one is prepared to say what it is specifically for. Registrations are still taking far too long. We have rule changes which do not seem for the betterment of the pilots that are supposed to be the focus of the organisation OR for increasing safety, and we have a new proposed Ops Manual that is so secret even the members are not allowed to see it. We even seem to have staff insistent on taking members to task over rules that do not exist.

The idea of voting on proposed changes to the organisation on a forum has merit, and if using single voting checks (like membership numbers), I don't see why it can't work. It doesn't even have to be this forum, it could be the RAAus website, but the biggest issue will be getting RAAus to actually inform us of proposed changes and set up the voting system. I know some will say it's the reps job to act on our behalf, but is also their job to inform us of their decisions and why they were made.

Its time the Board laid everything on the table and came clean and explained their actions and why they think the decisions they have made are for the betterment of RRAus (the members, not the staff and the Board). I don't think the current Board are able to do this. I said along time ago the entire Board should be dismissed and an administrator appointed so we can start again with a clean slate. I know we have some new Board members that say good things are happening, but they obviously can't do what they wanted to do, or should be doing, under the current regime. I still have not had enough information to make me change my mind.

And just because this is on a thread about engine off ops, I had a delightful flight this afternoon and shut down from 2000ft enjoying the peaceful journey to earth. I even survived and managed to do so without inconveniencing or injuring anyone else . RAAus have my details if they feel the need to "counsel" me.

Good news TK58, any news on whether or not RAAus could issue temporary registrations until the rego is processed to avoid grounding aircraft?

I think I recall from last year that any that were sent in early were held as they could not process until the actual expiry date. They were then held up further in the backlog. If this sort of thing is going to be continuing is there any reason RAAus could not issue a provisional registration when received until processing either is completed or rejected? The fact that some are grounded and then receive significantly less registration period than they pay for is clearly unacceptable.

Thanks for that Frank, will that still cover RAAus ops or is that specifically just for GA?

That will make it pretty final Nobody. I hope it doesn't get through. It would have been nice to have some input into our Ops Manual, but until then ..................

Looking at the Ops Manual again i see there might be a problem with enforcing that statement regarding engine off ops as well. It appears not to be part of the actual syllabus but a NOTE attached to it. As far as I am aware, a note is just advisory information and not actually a rule. If it is a rule it would be within the syllabus with a number attached. Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could clarify?

You are right Crezzie, but that is in the training syllabus and has already been determined to only apply to students, and furthermore only restricts the student whilst in the circuit. If the student was solo and flying away from the circuit area, it seems an instructor could authorise his student to shut the engine down. (might be a brave instructor!!)

It seems all the answers you got were correct, but didn't answer the question of whether or not it is prohibited. Yes RAAus makes the rules, but if they are not in the Ops/Tech manuals they are not rules, just opinions or views which have no more validity than anyone else's.

The simple test for any type of operations are .. If i did "xxx" are there any rules/laws that I would break and perhaps be sanctioned/grounded or otherwise in trouble. IMO, If the Ops Manual does not prohibit engine off ops RAAus can take no action against someone who does it and an individuals opinion (Ops Manager or not) is not really worth much. Her opinion may be different than those that originally wrote the Manual. If those that wrote the Manual wanted to prohibit engine off ops, it would have been put in there. It was obviously thought about as it was mentioned in the context of students, being low experience pilots not allowed to do it in the circuit where there may be other traffic or problems.

It would be different if an Ops manual specified "all operations other than those specified within are prohibited" (or similar) but then we would have a 300 page ops manual that needed constant updating.

I am not against rules/laws and try hard to keep within them, whether i agree with them or not, but I do have a real problem when anyone tries to enforce rules/laws that don't exist just because, as an individual, they don't like whats happening.

If RAAus want to prohibit engine off ops, put it in the Ops Manual! Unless I can find where this is specified as an unlawful act I will continue to occasionally shut down and enjoy the beauty of quietly parachuting back to earth, legally.

Sorry I seem to have upset you Tech, I was under the impression this was a discussion forum and not just somewhere to pat RAAus on the back. I may be wrong, but you have not claimed i was wrong or explained why you thought so. The old "ring RAA/Rep" line is really a cop out as you well know they would need another dozen phone lines and half a dozen extra staff. Plus there would no longer be a need for a forum. I'm not sure why you would think the possibility of RAA making up rules isn't worthy of discussion. If it's true, I'm sure this has affected a lot of students and pilots over the years.

I don't think there is a real problem with continual negative whinging. Every one that has had a whinge seems to have had a real problem with whatever their subject was. We do need to keep in mind that if no-one whinged, nothing would ever change.

Hardly "creative" Tech, either engine off ops are prohibited or they are not. Everything I have read indicates it refers to in the circuit, students only. The Board seems to have realised the same thing that such ops are not prohibited under the Ops Manual, yet RAAus has, and still, promotes engine off ops as forbidden.

Whilst I won't comment on the airmanship of the PPC pilot which is the subject of the original post, apart from stuffing up the landing there is no indication he/she actually did anything wrong. Yet the statement from RAAus clearly indicates that in their view he/she was conducting engine off ops when not supposed to.

This leaves the question I asked as very simple, if engine off ops are not prohibited for a fully certificated pilot under our Ops Manual, why would RAAus actively try to promote it as being prohibited and further, try to publicly embarrass/chastise a pilot that had not actually broken the rule they were referring to?

With the Ops team making such a public (to members) statement regarding the folly of something they consider such unsafe operations, and clear breach of rules that do not exist, is this an attempt by RAAus to restrict engine off ops when they have no actual authority to do so?

If "not within 4 km of any uncontrolled aerodrome or aircraft landing area"was added to the proposed "This would only apply in the standard operating conditions, which includes operations in visual line of sight, less than 400 feet above ground level, non-populous areas, more than 30 metres from people and outside controlled airspace" from a regulatory point of view this should cover the issue. They would not be operating in the flight path or circuit and below 400 feet so there would be no problem. Any other issues with idiots doing what they like already exists & you can't regulate against stupidity.

Not sure why RAA has to get involved with all the fly-ins anyway. For the last 5 years we have been going to a great fly-in at White Gum Farm (York WA). It has great facilities and fantastic atmosphere. The hosts Gordon and Gary waived camping fees for the weekend, killed a few sheep and had a fantastic roast dinner for $10 a head and we passed a few $$ over the bar in the evening whilst chatting around the several fires keeping warm.

Along comes RAA and says you have a great fly-in how about making it a statewide event and we will sponsor it. The birth of Westfly. First year a lot of people came (i counted over 50 aircraft on the ground and aircraft were coming and going all weekend) , price of dinner went to $25 and served around 250 meals. Next year I counted 20 aircraft on the ground and it was very quiet and i only saw about 40 people in for dinner. Coffee vans and ice cream vans were packing up and leaving for lack of sales. Campers were now also charged $10 a head.

I worked out with traveling fuel, camp fees, meal fees, flying fuel costs for the weekend, for my family around $500 for the weekend.

RAA turned a great, inexpensive social flying weekend that was White Gum Farm Fly-in, into a boring, expensive RAA event.

Along with the others that disappeared after the first Westfly, we won't be there next time.

Kev

Challenge completed (as shown on other thread), thanks Jim.

The fact that you had to get a majority of the board to approve the release tells more than the actual document itself. It is a good sign that no longer is one person deciding what is confidential and what is not.

Kev

Congratulations on taking up the challenge Jim, and thank you.

I'm sure there are a lot of skeletons and things will take time. But I hope you and the other Board Members realise the general membership not only have a need to know what is happening within our association but are getting angry with the lack of information. Board minutes take 5 months to appear on the website and are incomplete as to missing reports from the president and secretary, yet it includes the GM and other reports. I understand there will be issues that must remain confidential but I don't believe for one minute that all Board information in those reports is confidential. The new Ops Manual is another example, it is now with CASA but no members have had an opportunity to see any changes. I would have thought such document that governs exactly how we can operate our aircraft would be available, if not for comment, certainly for perusal.

The Board requires monthly reports from the staff to ensure things are on track and any problems can be detected and acted on early. That is just due diligence on behalf of the Board. There is however that same need for the membership to know if our Board are on track and working effectively. This could be in the form of a monthly report to the members on the website. It does not have to provide sensitive material but an overview of the issues RAAus is currently working on and the direction the Board is heading with those issues. At the moment we get nothing of any substance.

With the issue of board members voting being recorded, this is the only way we can see if the members we voted for are following the platforms they were elected on . I understand that some constitutional reforms are under way that may include this issue however I believe that we don't need constitutional reforms to address this. It only need the willingness of the Board to be transparent. The constitution does not preclude this happening and is normal practice in most minutes I have seen. It only needs the Board to direct the minute taker to record the votes.

It does not bode well for our future when a Board has to be forced by constitutional changes to do what it should be doing voluntarily in the interest of accountability to the members.

Please no not read this as I am not supportive your efforts, we just need some Board members to start raising some of these issues in the Board Room and make a real start on change to accountability and supply of information to the members, not just working on damage control.

Some of us know we do not have the skills required to perform the duties of a Board member. That doesn't mean we are not worthy of being kept informed.

Thanks again Jim

Just wondering, is this engineers report that is required something that all individual LW's will need or once it is done for one, that report can be used by RAAus as proof of compliance for all others with the same mod?

Not being honest??? I am looking for some proof accountability has improved.

Yes I did vote.

I believe our WA Rep is Ed??

Aero, Do you not think communication has improved? Info on the web site? Accountability behind the scenes has in will continue however that is harder to demostrate at this time. There is support for reform on the constitution however that has a way to go.Jim Tatlock

I don't have a problem with any Rep. I have a problem with the systems in place that allowed the previous mess to happen and the Reps not changing that system. Accountability may have improved "behind the scenes" but until the Board can show the members just how, it is optimistic to think you will gain the full support and trust of the membership. We are a 9500, or so, association relying on the goodwill of a few elected members, That didn't turn out so well last time.

I cant see any reason why the Board could not announce what changes they had made to make things better. Surly that would make things even better for the Board.

I did put out the challenge several days ago for one of our Reps to make available the confidentiality agreement and asked why our elected officials are denied access to information unless it is signed. Now you are here would you care to take up that challenge?

I don't have time for this merry go round no wonder the board reps don't like posting on here.