Jump to content

01rmb

Members
  • Posts

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 01rmb

  1. From the facebook site =AZW33TkkZX9jgS7jWcyThYD-H_DKvlaZE8Yn2F3rjvlHYNI-qArK-XmbycaBhd59scMzS2gRBAHIOtjS8C5BloxiDxg0HEPF75VTUKlER4EuJ4MiCLeHj2e4TGvPq9cs3qNTs5DRvUGLwu7R_mbv4iSHy8O89dNAbOMj-7wTpnYW0Q&__tn__=-UC%2CP-R']Australian International Airshow AVALON 2021 DEFERRED TO NOVEMBER 2021 Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve been monitoring the evolving situation and its potential effects on the Australian International Airshow (AVALON 2021), whose centrepiece will be the once in a lifetime celebration of the Centenary of the Royal Australian Air Force. After extensive consultation and review, it has become clear that if we continued with the original February dates, the impacts of COVID-19, including uncertainty about availability of international travel, would pose unacceptable risks to our patrons and impact our event and the RAAF birthday celebrations. As we’ve all found while isolating in our own homes – it’s not much of a party when your friends can’t come! As a result, AVALON 2021, originally scheduled for 23-28 February, will be deferred to later in 2021, with timings in November being considered. Once dates are locked in we will let you know so you can save the date! =AZW33TkkZX9jgS7jWcyThYD-H_DKvlaZE8Yn2F3rjvlHYNI-qArK-XmbycaBhd59scMzS2gRBAHIOtjS8C5BloxiDxg0HEPF75VTUKlER4EuJ4MiCLeHj2e4TGvPq9cs3qNTs5DRvUGLwu7R_mbv4iSHy8O89dNAbOMj-7wTpnYW0Q&__tn__=EH-R']width=408px" alt="Image may contain: texthttps://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/97434382_2768795769915407_1463629802555572224_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=0W5Y1lts7B4AX9aK1zM&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=5943e73b57cb88fe1686242eaaee423c&oe=5EE2D315[/img]
  2. From what I understand - this does not mean that something like the Jabiru J230 bought from the factory under the LSA category will be granted a higher weight limit. The LSA category would need to be changed to allow that to happen and as it is aligned to an international standard, it won't happen (for any foreseeable future). If you were to build your own aircraft under a owner builder experimental category then whatever manufacturer weight restrictions apply and then if (when) RAAus is able to manage higher weight categories RAAus would allow registration under the higher weight limit. So unfortunately, even though the aircraft can handle a higher weight limit they will still not be able to take advantage of it if the aircraft was built under the LSA standard legislation.
  3. A missed opportunity to have made a real difference as it still is more complicated than necessary. Although an improvement of the current system, if they had simply copied and pasted the UK medical requirements they could have done away with a huge amount of bureaucracy and need for CASA staff to run a system that has evidence to show no real safety benefit. The last revamp of the CASA medical questionnaire was a joke. If you are safe enough to be on the road then there would be no more danger to yourself or the public in the air.
  4. To complete the CASA medical CASA requires a full history to the month including a broken leg, any pain relief, over the counter medication or herbal medicines taken over the last 4 years, any visits to a chiropractor and anything else that may have ever happened in your or your families life! At what point does this history of temporary events become irrelevant to what is going to happen in the next 1-4 years and which would if not disclosed lead to an increase the risk to the general population? By all means check normal function and history to ensure safe operation an aircraft such as vision, diabetes, seizures, psychiatric conditions and heart disease but to have to declare a Codral taken 4 years ago for a cold? The whole CASA medical process seems to take a reasonable medical assessment of fitness to fly to a whole level of extreme paranoia. The medical if needed to investigate any issue should be able to be conducted by any doctor and be limited to any long-term or permanent injury or illness that may affect their ability to fly safely.
  5. Don - If you really wanted to know what people thought, go back to the other threads about the problems with the constitution. Given all the feedback provided before the constitution was put to the vote and the vitriol from some it is no wonder people have given up. Why bother when all the feedback gets ignored. We just have to live with the discontent and consequences.
  6. I still defend a member's right to raise a resolution and for the constitution to be followed by all. At best the constitution is poorly worded around the timing for a member's resolution. No conspiracy - just a case of not wishing to see member's rights diminished.
  7. I would contend they have breached member's rights by limiting resolutions to the 23rd September since I still believe the time for a member to propose a resolution is 7 days according to 27.3. Clause 21 is totally for the board to call a general meeting. If the board provides notice of a general meeting at 21 days notice - how could a member provide a member's resolution within the same time frame? That is why there has to be a period of time after the notice of a meeting and the close off time to receive a member's resolution. If ASIC really had any teeth they would surely bite at the board blocking a member's ability to raise a resolution in accordance with the constitution. I would love to see the legal advice that says that is okay!
  8. In my years of consulting I have been amazed by how many dumb decisions are made by people, including many senior execs and board members. The lesson I learnt is never to under estimate the fact that people can be 'just plain dumb'! I believe this to be a case of reading the message they want into the document not reading what it actually says.
  9. Still think you should be worried because if you do take the loss of $227k and add on the trade payables of $232k of which $225k is for the new software, the loss is really $459k. This would drop the cash to $688k.
  10. Sorry - I may have misled you The cash in the bank is now $920k, building $829k and other other misc assets incl plant, receivables and the new software $448k. The $377k cash down was the amount of cash that is no longer in the bank this year from the $1296k we had last year. Not a good situation with the Current Assets worse off by $319k whilst Current Liabilities are worse off by $102k. With the Current Ratio dropping from 3.63 to 2.18 we are going backwards fast. There is also a little matter of trade payables, accrued and other expenses that is $283k so if taken out of cash will be a big drop in cash reserves. This is $150k more than last year. Sneaky if done deliberately to hold up the cash number...
  11. See members section https://members.raa.asn.au/storage/1-20160929-signed-financial-statements-2016-final.pdf Cash down $376,856 Overall Equity down $227,535 Better than 2015 which was down $268,781 from previous year Travel up $58,467 Member fees down $41,452 Nothing spent on airshow and courses Increase of stock with $22,923 of merchandise Intangibles up due to new software system $205,760 Losses due to magazine hidden somewhere in there
  12. Remember the rules in the constitution were set up by the board and voted on by the members. The problems and contradictions were identified by a number of people especially Kasper who said fix the problems before making them legally binding and now we are faced with the problems of not getting them right in the first place. You can't just pick and choose which rules we should follow - That is where we will really end up in trouble.
  13. Don - you have cross referenced the notification time of 21 days which is the minimum time the board must advise members of an AGM to occur (Constitution Section 21 Notice of general meetings) with the time allowed for members to propose a resolution (Constitution Section 27 Members’ resolutions and statements) which is a minimum of 7 days. IT IS NOT THE SAME. The relevant section for members to request a resolution/statement is Constitution Section 27.3 A request to distribute a Members’ statement must be given to the Company at least seven (7) days prior to a general meeting and set out the statement to be distributed and be signed by the Members making the request. In the notification of the AGM, it states "Any member intending to submit a resolution must do so in writing prior to 23 September 2016." Why this is a contradiction of the 7 day notice from the constitution I don't know other than possibly to allow time to forward such resolutions to the members. BUT then the constitution should have allowed more time than the minimum of 7 days. If the time to provide notice of a proposed member's resolution to members is sufficient then it must be done at RAAus cost as per Constitution Section 28. Or if not enough time then at the cost of the member proposing the resolution (but a resolution may be passed to reimburse those costs). But what is the cost for sending out an email to all members since that is how I was advised of the AGM in the first place and received an update from the CEO only yesterday? Certainly NOT the $10,000 you speak of. It is important that the rules detailed in the constitution be followed by everyone - especially the board and CEO charged with carrying them out. Hopefully the board has received better advice than what you are providing here.
  14. Why categorise one person to be an "expert" and another an "armchair critic" simply because they are not the CEO or a board member? Just because somebody is not on the board does not make them less capable or able to contribute in a positive way. There are lawyers, engineers, accountants, business leaders including any number of very experienced pilots and aircraft builders/maintainers with a wide range of qualifications and experience - why not make use of them rather than disparage them as armchair critics? Changes to the constitution and supporting documents, operations manual and technical manual were sent out accepting there were flaws that needed to be corrected. Why not send it out for comment and then actually listen to what comes back so it can be better first time? The board, CEO and the technical manager are not the only people who can provide the answers. Plan the consultation period and you will not be caught out with no time to engage with the people that will be affected by the changes. Change 101! The problem comes when people in board, CEO and other leadership roles believe they are above the people they are meant to be serving. They do not have all of the answers so why not consult with the members on significant changes?
  15. You can't have the case of 'we set the rules and you must follow them and you will face consequences if you don't' but we can do as we please even to the point of breaking legal constitutional rules on the basis of it does not matter! If the board and CEO are not following the rules then why should they expect different from the members? If someone says "Trust us" then they need to demonstrate they deserve and continue to earn that trust. The board and CEO, above all else, need to be be doing and be seen to be doing the right thing and held to account if they don't.
  16. Not quite true, since the technical manual states "...a minimum of three stage inspections must be carried out by an RAAus L1 (approved by the Technical Manager), L2 or L4". The key point being the Technical Manager needs to approve an L1 to be able to do stage inspections not just any L1, and, the criteria for the Technical Manager to approve an L1 to do a stage inspection has not been defined!
  17. Andrew Schox, one of the board nominees of the five is the registered owner of the 'The Five for the Future' web site - Five for the future
  18. The web site domain is owned by Andrew Schox - the WA based member of the Five for the Future.
  19. All the discussion disregards all the things that can go wrong on final that requires power for a go around. I have aborted landings and done a go around to avoid birds, kangaroos, a glider that took longer than expected to clear the runway as well as a preceding aircraft that had run off the runway. Why kill the power completely and remove safe options to avoid much more serious consequences? Flying has enough risks - no need to unnecessarily make it more hazardous when simply pulling the power back pretty well does the same thing.
  20. Don - thank you for your considerable effort engaging and consulting providing information/clarification on the forum to try to clarify and explain issues raised by members interested enough to to provide feedback. Not knowing what other feedback was provided to the CEO, my observation of the conversation here (on the whole) is an official board position was probably needed earlier in the process to enable the draft to be revised to tidy up a few details or explain the board's position before being put to a vote.
  21. I still have major concerns over the broad based objects of the company, lack of disciplinary process and dispute resolution process enshrined in the constitution, lack of appeal process for new membership applications and discipline process and a members charter that is is more about what a member needs to do for RAAus and limited on what members can expect from RAAus. The major problem is the objects are so lose a 'future' board could divert the company away from what members expect - administering pilot certificates and aircraft registrations which are not even referred to in the constitution. Further, the constitution has 'recreational aviation' in only 2 places - as the title of the constitution and the name of the company - nothing as to what the company represents for members. Aviation only gets a couple of mentions in the objects for the company to advance aviation and training in aviation (but also spacecraft), as well as members register to meet aviation authority & laws. The only time license or certificate gets a mention is where the company will keep a record of member's certificates. Aircraft registration - nothing... Classes of membership to fly or instruct etc - nothing...
  22. The special resolution 5 states "...to bring the board size to no less than five members." The communications sent from the RAAus office states "The new constitution reduces the board size to a maximum of 7 members." So whilst anywhere from 5 to 7 directors complies with the messages being communicated it is a fair question to ask - will we be voting for an additional 4 or only 2 directors at the election to be held within 6 months? Given the proliferation of the number 7 being used on all the RAAus communications updates, one could be forgiven to have expected to see 7 board members shortly after the adoption of the new constitution. The only definitive answer to that question has been from Don on this forum (which as stated is not an official position of RAAus but about as close to one as we should expect to get) where he says there will be a total of 5 directors (with 2 new positions to be filled) with an extra 2 (total 7) only being added at some time, if ever, at the board's choosing. With even current board members not clear it is no wonder general members could be forgiven for not knowing.
  23. I recognise, respect and appreciate the effort that has been put into changing the constitution but why accept something that needs to be improved? We need to be sure we get a constitution that will protect member’s rights and should not just accept one that needs immediate improvement to get it right - Get it right first time. I cannot support the proposed changes to the constitution in its current form and will be voting NO until changes are made to include better controls to ensure member’s privileges and rights are protected. My critical issues with the proposed constitution and supporting documents are: The objects of the company are so lose that the company (CEO and directors) can do most anything in the name of advancing aviation or encouraging training but there is nothing in the proposed constitution that specifically addresses the requirement for the provision of pilot certificates or aircraft registrations. The objects needs to be more focussed to ensure the company will deliver the services we as members need and to protect the current privileges we require in recreational aviation in order to fly. When developed, the disciplinary process and dispute resolution process will be separate to the constitution and can be changed at any time by the directors with no input from the members. The disciplinary process and dispute resolution process needs to be included in the constitution to ensure it cannot be changed without members input and vote. There is no appeal process to protect member’s/prospective member’s privileges for membership application or disciplinary action short of taking legal action at your cost and which RAAus would protect at the members cost. There needs to be an agreed process for disciplinary action with an appeal process which includes escalation to an independent regulator/ombudsman to ensure fairness for members/prospective members. Procedural fairness provides the basis of a good disciplinary process not as a replacement to it. The member’s charter which is separate to the constitution can be changed at any time by the directors with no input from the members. This needs to be included in the constitution to ensure it cannot be changed without members input and vote. The member’s charter is poorly written and does not ensure member’s rights from the company and staff to deliver services critical to the ability to legally fly including the provision of pilot certificates and aircraft registration. There needs to be more to ensure the members can expect of RAAus and staff to provide good openness, communication, consultation, fairness and integrity to members. RAAus as the sole provider of pilot certificates and aircraft registration for recreational aircraft must have a constitution that ensures member’s privileges are protected now and in the future. The constitution must be set up to provide checks and governance of the board to deliver the critical activities (objects) with appropriate disciplinary and appeal processes. Whilst the current board may be able to provide the appropriate governance for RAAus can we be ensured that will always be the case. With a smaller board it will only take 3 people to have full and absolute control until member’s take back control via a member’s resolution to effect a change of the board. If the people involved in bringing about the changes are truly committed to the outcome then they should take solace in people actually being interested enough to register a no vote telling them that further work is needed and not give up on the work done to date. The constitution changes are headed in the right direction but it needs further improvement before I can consider it to be acceptable. Changing or not changing the constitution has little to do with RAAus doing a good job and avoiding CASA issues. That is up to the CEO and the board to make sure the performance requirements are being met and any complaints are being dealt with appropriately. The constitution serves to ensure the company has a clear purpose and that members can not be unfairly restricted through a poor disciplinary process.
  24. What is the problem of calling the election for the additional 2-4 directors (or in fact all directors) immediately following the special general meeting and adoption of the new company structure and constitution? Of course the election would not be required if the resolutions are not accepted.
  25. Thanks David - Numbering would assist referencing 'Proposed Constitution' and 'Charter when adopted' is on Page 1 Purpose of the Charter Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 and 'Draft Constitution' is on Page 3 Accountability Directors Paragraph 1 Sentence 1. The charter document is not written well and would need to be edited post constitution being accepted. The references for integrity are on page 2 - What can a member expect from RAAus? and page 3 - What RAaus expects from members? and page 4 Staff Accountability Social media communications channel is on page 2 - Communication. In my opinion, the constitution document really just needs to address a couple of things around the dispute resolution and appeal process. On the other hand, the members charter is poor and needs a fair bit more work to be acceptable. And pmccarthy - do as you please with your wankel - you vote however you see fit but if the constitution and members charter is poorly written and does not address reasonable concerns then don't expect me to support it. You can't please all the people all the time but critical constitutional and supporting documents should be better prepared than this. Given that our rights to fly are at stake they have to be right. Take the time and do it right - It is not that hard.
×
×
  • Create New...