Aerochute Kev

"Hypothetical" Dear Valued Customer We seem to have developed a problem with our product. It seems our processes were not actually legal and until we can install the necessary processes to remedy the situation it is now illegal for you to use the machine we provide the licence for. The annual licence fee you pay to us will still need to be paid on the due date, regardless of whether the problem is resolved. The process review and implementation we need to ensure we meet the required legal standard may be expensive and as we do not wish to use our substantial cash reserves for this purpose, it is necessary to increase your annual licence fee by 13%. I'm sure such a small increase will have no effect on you whatsoever and look forward to receiving your cheque so we can get started on resolving the issues that will allow you to use your machine again. Yours sincerely General Manager. .....How many customers will this company have left in 12 months? I think we are being held to ransom by a monopoly, our own organisation, it's rougue board no longer willing to be answerable to the members. They have been given ample warning from the members and CASA to start acting correctly and for the benefit of the members and its now time CASA stepped in and shut them down. Time to start again with a true recreational organisation with a real interest in working for the benefit of the members. We need a second organisation to step up to provide real competition. See how long the current thinking lasts then. (HGFA are you there?) Can't happen soon enough for me. Kev

"Rainy Day" Maj? I think its pouring right now. If the mess we are in doesn't deserve the urgent input of some of those funds, what constitutes a rainy day? To raise everyone's fees to implement an SMS when you have the money sitting there to get it done does not sound like good management to me, it sounds like a Board amassing a huge amount of money just so when they go they can say "look at the great shape we left RAAus in for the remaining 50 members" When do we stop raising fees, when we have $5m? $10m? Kev

The 2013 Annual Board Meeting was held on the 18th and I cant find any comments on the forum on any of the resolutions passed at that meeting. Of course our organisation, that has squirreled away over $1m of members money, now sees fit to raise membership fees to $210 per year as from 1st Jan 2014. This under the pretext of CPI, and the cost of developing and implementing the SMS. Why the hell are we not using the >$1m to do this? Any one else think this is just another WTF moment? Kev

I I don't think the divider can be between factory built and homebuilt. I think weight/performance would be the key. An Aerochute with 300kg MTOW, 35kts and factory built would be in the same class as a Factory Built Jab or similar? And a kit built plastic fantastic with 912 and capable of 13okts in the same class as a rag and tube capable of 50kts just because they are homebuilt. Doesn't make sense to me to head that way. As a group, and an organisation we seem to forget about aircraft other than the fast fixed wings when making/changing the rules! Kev

It All the new regs, weights and airspace "needs" don't just magically appear. They are achieved through a lot of time and effort spent by OUR tireless staff at RAAus. Our rego's and membership fees pay for the mammoth amount of time our paid staff put into these projects. That's why it costs more. My membership or rego is no cheaper just because i might choose to fly around a paddock. Those that do not need or even want all the extra things we push for are in effect subsidising the cost for those that do. If we were not chasing more and more all the time, then having to hire more staff to administer all the extra requirements it would cost us all less. Those staff are paid by all members, regardless of whether or not they will, or can, use it. Even with the continual push for more, we have still amassed a small fortune of over $1m which tells me we are paying too much anyway for rego and membership. Kev

O OK, does not really matter where the line is drawn, could be 60knts, 70kts, 400kg or 450kg, whatever. The point being that it would not necessarily be a marginal group. I think we now have too many different classes/types of aircraft all trying to fit into one set of Regs. Why not draw a line somewhere and fix regs for that group. You want to fly faster, heavier, more airspace ...... Move to the next group and pay for the benefits you want. Oh hang on, we already have that.... RAAus/GA. Every additional increase in weight, airspace etc costs all members, for a benefit only a few will want or use. The sooner RAAus dies and we start again as a purely recreational aviation body with realistic regs for RECREATION the better. Maybe even the HGFA could change (become AUF?) and become a second major player accepting the true "ultralights". Maybe then the "marginal" group would be the ones always wanting more? Kev

Marginali Marginalised? Maybe but if you put all the sub 50kt aircraft together, PPC's Trikes, 95:10 etc I would think you would have a fairly decent group. Let the others fight over more airspace, heavier aircraft etc and all the extra regulations that might go with it. I don't know about anyone else but i'm pretty happy being able to do what I can now and don't need MORE'(more height, more weight, more airspace, more regs, more cost) Kev

If you have any problems with the order page just send Bear an e-mail at the contact address and tell him what you want. Lots of good stuff there at very competitive prices. Have dealt with Bear before and I doubt you will get better service. Kev

Have a look at bearperkins.com and click on the link for the catalog. They are called fuel floatees. About $5-$6 each from memory. Kev

Insurance companies are in the business of making money. You pay a certain amount to cover the risk of something bad happening. If that event happens it has the potential to cost the insurance company a lot of money. This may seen a silly question, but why are insurance companies not supplying the type of passenger waivers we need? You can bet if they did, it would be the best waiver to reduce the chances of them having to pay out. With that said, why are RAAus's insurers not providing RAAus members with such a waiver? Kev

Did some aerial baiting a few years ago with WA Ag Dept. Have to be licensed to handle the baits and as with most Gov't depts, staff only allowed to fly in twins, for safety reasons as the aerial baiting is usually remote areas. WA beach patrols used to be carried out by a Perth aero club but now by chopper as well. Big $$$$

Pretty hard to defend if as you described Turbo. You did mention that the cloud "descended" to just above ground height so maybe they were already up in VMC and got caught? Still no excuse really. PPCs have a 300ft minimum, different from fixed wing, rotary or trikes. Still 1000ft over built up areas. It would however from your description seem they were lower than that. We do have an advantage of being able to use a relatively small paddock for take-off/landing which makes finding areas easier but these places become hard to find if we get a bad reputation. With fewer Aerochutes around than other aircraft types it probably would not be hard to ask around and be able to track them down and ask for a "please explain".

I don't buy it. There is no reason that I can think of for a President to overrule the board and do what he likes, just because he thinks his way is the best way. The board members are our representatives, there to act on our behalf. If any decision remains at a stalemate, the obvious solution is to present the information (ALL of it) to the members at a general meeting and have the membership decide the resolution. They have to remember that they are there to represent our views for the benefit of the organisation and its members, so why not seek advice from them in such a situation.

Shame the members are not "aware of the circumstances". Well I am just about over all this. Can we as members dismiss the entire board, insert a management team (sort of like an administrator) until elections can be held and if any current members of the board want to stand, they will be judged by the membership? Nice weather tomorrow so I'm going flying, whilst I still can. Kev

Good start Pete, but don't forget some timelines, or else we could be in the same position as we currently are with the board just never getting anything done as they don't think it important enough. With realistic timelines in place they will need to explain any failures to complete the requirements. Kev

Yes turbo, that is pure speculation, like the majority of suggestions on this issue, as no one with the knowledge of what is actually going on is saying anything. Openness and accountability is a great thing eh?

The other alternative that no one has mentioned, is that Miles may have been "unemployed for several weeks" as he could have left his other job knowing at that time of the new position. If so, he could still be correct that he gave up his other day job for this one. But that doesn't make the appointment look so urgent, does it?

Gavin might have resigned in frustration, then again he might have had other reasons. The fact is until he lets people know his reasons we can only guess. I have been following this RAAus debacle for quite some time and have trying to figure out what one action could have avoided all the problems we now face. I think the answer is simply ACCOUNTABILITY. The Executive/Board members have not been accountable for their actions because they simply did not tell anyone what was happening or how they responded to any challenges. When I read any minutes of their meeting it is filled with such useless information such as ""motion to XXXXX short discussion ensued, CARRIED" or similar. No information as to why that item is being discussed, what issues were brought up in discussion or the results of any voting. The board need to provide to the members full disclosure of any issues, the discussion surrounding that issue AND how they voted. This needs to be in the format of proper minutes of any meeting being available on the Members section of the website. (And a proper Agenda so we know what may be coming up at a meeting if we wish to have any input). That way if any members can see that a particular Board member was not acting in the best interest of the membership, there is the possibility he/she can be given direction from those he/she represents. Can anyone honestly say that if such a system was in place we would still be in the mess we are currently in? Kev

Just had a look at the RAAus website. Perhaps we can have the website changed from having a section on registration updates, and replace it with resignation updates? Might be more information provided to the members under that heading. Kev

So if Myles had resigned to take on this position and the Board overturns the appointment he could have been given an option to withdraw his resignation as it was on the understanding it was for the purpose of taking on the new position. As he resigned to "pursue other options" the Board cannot now give him any option to withdraw his resignation. Am I reading this correctly?

He hasn"t withdrawn it today has he??

In my previous post #88 I may have given the impression that the person I gave my proxy to wasted it. In no way do I feel it was wasted by the person I gave it to, but meant that proxy's in general may have been a waste of time. I have PM'd that person personally to apologise for not making myself clear enough and to thank him for his efforts. Kev

Am I the only one that feels cheated by the reported results of the meeting? I can't help the feeling that my Proxy was wasted. This was a perfect opportunity to force the board/executive into action and only two fairly nondescript motions were passed. (With promises that "we will do better") Why were the board not given clear motions along the lines of: Treasurer to have all financial reports up to date and complying with legislative requirements in 30 days. SR to provide written legal advice and brief regarding re-appointment within 30 days. Board to include ALL board members with all material required to perform their functions as per legal requirements. RAAus to employ staff/volunteers required to complete all NCN's issued by CASA within 30 days. These may be not the actual motions put, but I hope you see where I am going with this. With actual instructions from the membership as to what is expected of them, the members have the opportunity to remove the "dead wood" at the AGM if they fail to perform. Surely even the supporters of the Board couldn't object to clear directives and the possibility of member sanctions if they fail to do their job. I think we have missed the chance of this by just allowing them to say something along the lines of "we did the best we could but will try harder" and leave them to, hopefully, do the right thing. It should be obvious to all that they need guidance. If they still havn't improved by Temora what then? start the process all over again? Kev

Thanks Andy. dont know why I cant access through the RAAus site. Very interesting reading.

I've just spent 15 mins going in circles on the RAAus site and cant even get to the letter. Has it been removed? or can someone post it here so we can read it?