Aerochute Kev

I in no way wish to question your resolve or credibility. I am questioning a system that appears to gag ALL information regarding board matters and not just those that may need a degree of confidentiality. The subject of this thread is a prime example. The board had made a decision back in October to exclude FTFs, a decision that may have had serious consequences for any FTF or instructor and no mention of it has been made until now. This is a communication breakdown of major proportions that could have been avoided if all reps were not gagged. (I did notice that the minutes of the Oct 2013 Board Meeting are still not published on the RAAus website, 3 months later) I have no problem with a confidentiality agreement on a particular subject/matter if the board believes it is justifiable or necessary in the circumstances, and votes to introduce it accordingly. As I have previously asked, why do our board members have to sign a confidentiality agreement to get information they are entitled to under our constitution and who decides what is covered under that agreement? Or is that confidential too?

Indeed you have continued to post Maj, and you are a valuable and knowledgeable member of this forum. My point was not that you are not posting, but have been gagged from discussing the issues that we as members need our reps to keep us informed about. The openness and accountability that most of the reps believed in so strongly before their election now means nothing as they cant say anything without approval from the board as a whole, or the executive. Whilst new board members are forced to sign a confidentiality agreement that seems to cover all board activities ,or not have access to the information they need, we can vote in as many new reps as we like and nothing will change. Any such agreement must be on a case by case basis and only if the subject requires confidentiality for commercial of privacy reasons. I am interested to know how our reps are forced to sign an agreement to get information that our constitution demands they have an automatic right to access. As for standing for a position on the board, at this time i can honestly say i have little interest in being a member of RAAus, let alone a board member. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I am only a member of this monopoly at this time because i have no other suitable option if I wish to continue to fly (legally). I don't think the current situation where a new Rep is effectively gagged will encourage anyone to stand for a board position.

Are they not already contributing? Every student they pass becomes another full member, paying their membership and helping the RAAus to grow. So in reality the FTF's are contributing financially more than most ordinary members. Without them RAAus would wither and die. I would think this alone would be a good reason not to alienate them further. I would be happy for instructors to have a substantial DISCOUNT on membership purely on that basis.

FT has hit the nail on the head. Our board members work for the organisation not as representatives of the members. We vote for a board member to represent our interests and as soon as they are elected they are forced by the other board members to sign a confidentiality agreement, meaning they can no longer keep us informed of what is happening or what decisions have been made on our behalf. Where did this agreement come from and what legal basis does the board have to force new members to sign? When I vote for a board member I don't include the proviso that they have to sign a confidentiality agreement so they can only tell us what the executive want us to know. As far as I know the constitution clearly gives access to all information and documents to a board member so who has the right to deny that access unless this agreement is signed? We have a previously very active and vocal member of this forum recently voted onto the board and I have noticed he has been very quiet about board activities since. The secrecy and underhanded way things get done in RAAus will never change as long as this agreement is in place.

So Jim, we are still operating at a profit, and still have a need to increase the membership fees. Can you explain that? Kev

More like they learned from Centrelink. My Mum was talking to Centrelink a while ago about her pension and why it took so long to get things done. Apparently about 2 years ago Centrelink got a rocket up them from the Minister about the high number of ongoing cases that have never been resolved, finalised or were just taking too long to get anything done. Centrelink's answer was to CLOSE any file as inactive that had not replied to their correspondence within 14 days. Now they have very few ongoing files but have to re-open a case when they finally hear from their clients. Who said they were stupid?? - Kev

Having finally sorted out my registration (I think?) and giving RAAus the information they requested I sent an e-mail querying why it takes weeks before an owner is notified of missing information. I won’t say at this time whether it was a staff member or not but part of the reply explaining why it has been taking so long has got me thinking of whether we are treating the CASA appointed delegate as just another staff member in the registration process chain, or as a temporary appointment to judge our ability to get things right. The small passage of the reply that got me thinking is below: “A key sticking point has been the presence in the office of a CASA delegate who must vet every renewal application and approve it. Missing information may not emerge until this stage and it then goes back to the staff to deal with.” If he is just treated as just another staff member in the chain and regularly finding errors, does it indicate our staff are not yet capable of registering various types of aircraft without supervision? It may explain why it might take weeks to finally learn information is missing from a file if this is the case. However, if ( as I believe) he is there to judge our abilities and report to CASA, certainly by now NO file should make it to his desk without being complete. If this second scenario is correct and he is merely a CASA overseer, we cannot blame him for any holdups or the time it takes to notify owners of problems. The only conclusions I can draw from this is that either our staff are not capable of doing it OR do not have the resources to be able to do it. Either way, I think it needs to be addressed.

I can still get it with Firefox (not Mac)

Final installment (I hope) Got a response from RAAus that weight form to be signed off by Level 2 or 4 maintenance holder. As i'm nowhere near either (WA has only one level 4), i did it myself and sent it in. Got a call from Darren Barnfield that all was OK, he would sign it as a Level 4. Apparently the new Tech Manual (when it comes out) has removed this difficult requirement. He will let the office know to remove the wording of the requirement for manufacturer verification from any future letters that go out. Hope I get an e-mail to say its registered soon, as it expires tomorrow. (unless they need something else they haven't told me about yet) Kev

Seems the new requirement to have all aircraft "weight verified" by the manufacturer is not able to be achieved. I spoke with the manufacturer of my aircraft and they have advised RAAus they will not sign new weight verifications sent to them for liability reasons, as they did not do the weighing. (sounds reasonable) The only way this can happen is if the aircraft needing it was to be returned to the factory for weighing. (not going to happen is it?) As such the only way for RAAus to get this information on record is to accept the OWNER as being able to verify the information, not the manufacturer!

At the moment (and for the foreseeable future), the best thing about RAA is............... its easy to spell.

I remember the audits. The point is, they already have the information and an identical aircraft rego approved 2 days ago was not asked for the information they are now asking of me. Is it being made up as they go along? The aircraft is a factory certified aircraft, certified and approved at the specified weight. Has anyone else been asked for a weight declaration by the manufacturer? Are they just trying to make being a member and getting aircraft rego'd deliberately difficult? Not advising members for three weeks when they require something and only after being contacted to ask what was happening is not the way to encourage membership. I don't know about a fee increase for membership, they should be offering discounts at the moment to try and get people to stay with them. Seriously thinking of looking for a trike and moving to HGFA. RAAus are just not worth the effort, things just don't seem to be improving. Looking forward to cancelling my membership of the monopoly. Might be a bit dearer membership, but at least I will be able to fly.

This is interesting as I have never heard of the weight information being needed. 503 obviously didn't need it 2 days ago!! This info is already on the aircraft on the sticker showing aircraft empty weight and MTOW. This was done by the manufacturer and all are the same! Why would they need to know the weights of anything added (radio, gps etc.) as long as it is operated under MTOW ? I don't get it.!!! has anyone else had to do this? I am trying to ring the WA rep for some answers but not answering right now. (Can't say I blame him in this current climate!) - Kev

Better ring them Dazza, might be in the same pile waiting for them to send you a letter. I was keen to give them the benefit of the doubt and not hassle them and slow them down by contacting them. Seems that is a waste of time, they don't seem to do much unless you are on their back. Since I rang them about an hour ago, the letter has appeared in my e-mail inbox!! Anyone else know anything of this requirement for a weight verification signed by the manufacturer for every individual aircraft? First I have heard of it! Seems the placards we have to have really don't mean much. Seems I will also be unregistered Friday as I now don't have time to get everything done. How I wish I flew a trike and could just tell them to P*SS OFF and move to HGFA.

Did my renewal electronically and e-mailed photo's 3 weeks ago. Thought I had it all covered. E-mailed this morning to see if all was OK as out of rego on Friday. Got an e-mail back requiring weight verification signed by the manufacturer! Rang to find out why it was required as the compliance plate photo affixed by the manufacturer clearly shows the empty weight and MTOW and why I was not notified sooner. Was told it was in the pile waiting for a LETTER to be sent out ( 3 weeks and they hadn't even sent the letter!) and that CASA now require a statement of weight signed by the manufacturer for each individual aircraft!!! Never heard of so much crap in my life!! HGFA where are you????

I have been wondering how long until someone mentioned the "contingency" being a legal action. It seems we may be saving money to give to someone else, instead of saving our own organisation. I did notice Jim still did not say for what purpose we are hoarding money or for what reasons it would be suitable to use it. Perhaps our Board can stop beating around the bush and tell us exactly what it is for and under what circumstances it can be used. We may well be on the wrong side of the balance sheet this year but that alone is not reason enough to raise the membership fees. Once this mess is sorted we will still be making an extra $200,000 a year so wont take long to rebuild reserves. Will the fees go back down next year when we start making a profit again Jim? I doubt it. We then may well be making a profit of $400,000 a year.It seems like from previous financials, if we don't make a profit of $200,00 the fees go up. A price rise is not the first response in any business that has a temporary financial situation, competition will not allow it. Sometimes you have to use your own reserves to get through, knowing it will be recouped at a later time. Price rises with no apparent benefit will lose customers. Of course, when you run a monopoly like RAAus your customers have little or no choice, pay up or don't fly, so you really don't need to keep costs at a minimum. We are sounding more like a public utility than a member owned, non profit organisation! Anyone know if HGFA are willing to step up and grow their organisation? - Kev

Interesting read Dafydd, do you want to write the advert for the next tech man?

I am going to show my ignorance of the types of fixed wing aircraft available to RAAus registration but will throw this in as a starting point. AUF then RAAus has always been about safe, affordable flying and "ultralights" but has evolved into much more. What if we chose a common entry level GA aircraft (C150?) and say that to be eligible for RAAus rego the aircraft must be lighter, slower at MTOW, less engine capacity and slower stall speed than that aircraft. In other words if you want to have an aircraft that out-performs an entry level GA aircraft, you go GA. This would then restrict RAAus aircraft to purely "recreational aircraft". Would this be reasonable?

No Job should be unifillable. If it is, I would suggest it's because either the money does'nt match the skills required or the support and processes to enable them to do the job are not there, or both. That's what we should be fixing.

No one is bashing the RAAus staff but they have a right at this stage to start asking what the hell the Board is doing to get this mess sorted out. Its 7 months since the meeting that let the Board know the members weren’t happy and they knew of the problems long before that. How much time do they need? The staff may well be working their butts off but obviously the board is not. If they are, they are not heading in the right direction. You may not have noticed but the continual criticisms are not of the staff but the RAAus itself, and I would hardly call it unfair critique. You may have reason to believe they are making great inroads but the only evidence I have seen of it is statements by the organization saying so. I don’t see much other evidence of it happening. Piles of rego’s still to be processed, planes grounded, a lot of people hurting. Forgive me if I seem cynical but at this stage I think we may be better off dealing with CASA. At least they would have the authority to get things going again. - Kev

It seems no one has any answers to my questions as to what our reserves are for. I believe we have a Board member or 2 that post regularly here so perhaps they would like to offer an explanation as to why the reserves cannot be used to recover the organisation and what the reasoning was to increase the membership fees before any plan for our future has been put in place? - Kev

I think you nailed it Robert. We have spent so much time and resources chasing more benefits for those few that want to fly GA on a RAAus budget that we have dropped the ball and allowed our core business, recreational aviation, to fail. - Kev

I agree with Maj that is is nice to have that cash reserve "for a rainy day" but in my view it's already pouring. If the reserves cant be used to get us out of this mess I really don't know what it is being saved for. Can anyone tell me just what we are saving it for if preventing the total collapse of RAAus is not a good reason to access it? We have the potential to be the richest organisation to no longer exist, because our Board does not want to use the resources we have. A pot of money is just what it is, more than enough to employ temp staff and put in place the processes we need to become a great organisation, and there is no need to increase fees at this stage. I have not claimed the membership fee is too high. I don't think there would be many complaints if we were getting value for money and everyone was enjoying their flying. With aircraft grounded (some permanently), Rego's expired, flight schools going broke, manufacturers not selling aircraft......... someone please convince me we are getting value for money and the fee increase is necessary. I doubt you would be able to justify it to yourself, let alone me. I in no way blame the staff or think they are overpaid. They can only do so much with what they have. The problem is the Board not giving the resources needed to fix this. (resources they already have). Whether the board are paid or not is in no way a justification for poor performance and allowing this mess to continue, and I hope you are not claiming it is?

Tough choice to make. There are those that no longer have those choices. You may now be in the same boat as them when they increase the fees again. I hope not. We should not be increasing the pot of money for the Board to play with until we see real results of what they can do with what they already have. - Kev

We have a management that has dragged our organisation to the brink of collapse. Changed a few board members, sacked a few staff, and we get the occasional platitudes on a website, with no real substance,and no real information as to what has actually changed in the last 7 months to fix the problems. The Board sits on over $1m of members funds which could have been accessed to fix the situation quickly and efficiently, but hasn't, and then has the nerve to tell its member it has to pay more to fix the problems. They have wasted resources and funds like there is no tomorrow, continue to dither around whilst the organisation collapses and we believe them when they say we need to pay more before it can be fixed? I for one would like to see some real results before they ask for more money. I won't be stopping flying for the sake of $25 but do resent paying more to be wasted on the same cr*p we have put up with for years. Use some of the reserves to get things sorted and provide real proof to the members that management is actually making things better before asking for more cash, or shut it down and start again. Kev