408059

Hmmm. This thread brings back memories.

Back in the late 80s I bought, in partnership, a monerai and flew it at Euroa. I think it was Terry Whitford's old VH-HDH but would have to check my log book. It was an interesting aircraft to fly. The monerai was very light so I could stay up in the lightest of thermals. The major draw back was the all flying tail. Behind the Maule Rocket tug it was impossible for me to keep in station. Landing in gusty conditions was equally challenging. My partner had similar issues. I was a low hour pilot in those days so we sold it on to Terry.

Cheers

Steve

I haven't renewed my membership this year so have to rely on newsagents for a copy. Thing is, I haven't seen it for a couple of months. Has RAA stopped the sale in shops?

cheers

Steve

Any chance the " enquiry into staff conditions of service" is anything to do with the "rumour" that a former employee was given almost $100k to relocate their household?Anyone heard anything?

Without a paper audit trail on staff benefit decisions then rumours will abound. Yeah, I’ve heard about the relocation costs and much worse. Most of the people concerned have long gone so it will probably end up as a judgment call on what to report. Let’s see what the auditors pull up.

A radical thought, why doesn’t RAA use some of its retained earnings and pay a decent amount for some good people to sort out the mess. They will not last long because of the politics but at least while they are there they can sort out the past sins of former managers.

Cheers

Steve

A couple of observations.

1) The early conjecture about what this is all about is quite entertaining but hardly surprising given what has been communicated and the way it was communicated.

I touched base with my Board member to find out a little more about the issue. My read of the reasons for the audit is that this is yet another example of systems not growing with the organization. The organization does not have the internal controls and processes you would expect or a ‘peak entity’ for recreation flying. When I spoke with my Board member nothing had been found except for the absence of appropriate checks and balances.

Looking to the positive, the Board has found a governance issue, informed the membership and is doing something about it. Pity it didn’t happen 5 years back. They really do need an internal audit process that periodically looks at these issues and reports back to the Board or a committee thereof.

I’m taken back many years to when Lee and Mick from the RAA office used to frequent our airfield. Over coffee you used to get insights into the sometimes dysfunction behavior of some Board members and the lack of process and procedure. Sure has come back to bite the organization. Bit sad nothing has been done about improving the systems given the retained earnings RAA has.

2) RSM Bird Cameron is a 2nd Tier Accounting Firm. It is on the Commonwealth Government procurement panel for the Agency I have some dealings with so it has jumped various vetting hurdles. I nearly used them for some contract due diligence work that I needed done so I know they have forensic accounting expertise. Not sure the Melbourne problems are all that relevant to the Canberra scene.

3) I hope some effort and thought goes into the upcoming recruitment of senior staff. Most people try to do a good job but if you don’t have direction from the Board, if you do not have the resources to perform the work, if you do not have the skills or experience then you are bound to fail. You need managers with strong management skills together with industry sector credibility and not-for-profit experience. You need Ops people who have the experience, are committed to RAA and can communicate. You need tech people with the right skills, can problem solve, can say no to members when required and can communicate. The position descriptions for these positions need to fully articulate real word need these people must deliver on. Sure hope they can get it right because the risk of bad recruitment can result in problems that haunts for years.

4) Turbo, you dropped me hints about the past finances in one of your posts. You were a little too cryptic for me. Please PM me and I’ll follow through.

Cheers

Steve

Hmmmmm

Not so sure AR. With finite resources and a fast approaching Christmas period that will slow the process I’d be spinning some positive lines as well. You need to rid yourself of as many distractions as you can and one of the major sources of distraction would be phone calls from upset members. The staff need to focus on vetting and clearing the files together with any other data cleansing required.

Now this is easy for me to say with a VH registered aircraft but it begs a question. Why are the registrations renewed every year?

Hopefully this question has not been featured in other threads.

In the past I can understand the logic. With rag and tube aircraft, built by members, being the mainstream aircraft then you want as many mechanisms as you can get to impose construction and maintenance standards. Remember, in those days we had cowboys or if they didn’t exist there was the perception that they existed. The renewal process probably served the purpose of ensuring a minimum standard of construction and maintenance and managed perceptions of government and the public that the AUF had these matters under control.

Today the fleet largely comprises plastic fantastic or similar type aircraft that are factory produced and the RAA has a mature maintenance system. Do we need an annual registration renewal system? CASA doesn’t use one. Is RAA using a system that has fewer relevancies given the make-up of the fleet and is now simply a rod for its own back? Food for thought.

Cheers

Steve

We jest but there is a human cost behind what has happened.

I dropped into the RAA office this morning. It was to pay my subs for the year. Aside from the fact that I didn’t recognize many faces from last year there was not a smile on anyone’s face. My levity and season’s greetings weren’t that bad.

I spoke briefly with the bloke trying to sort it out. He was just behind the front counter. Between fielding calls from irate members I asked a simple question and got a very defensive response. Gun shy?

Perhaps I misread the mood of the staff I saw and they were simply busy but I somehow expect the faces will change again when I pop in next year. If that’s the case then there has been a high cost because of the failure of managers no longer there.

Cheers

Steve

Read a few of the posts since last night. Could continue the debate on the figures but it will not add much value to the discussion. Suffice to say that the RAA does not have $2.5m or $1.8m or anything like these figures available but it does have some monies for new initiatives.

How much you may ask? Well that depends upon the direction the Board wants to take and its risk tolerance. A small charity might be prepared to sail close to the wind, run down its reserves and operate at levels where income meets expenditure. If they run out of cash then they ask Mrs. Brown to bake a few cakes and run a street stall. I would hope the RAA has a more conservative view. They are, for all intents and purposes, the peak entity for recreational flyers, be they pilots of ultralights, light aircraft, trikes, or refugees from GA etc. It would seem that the role of the RAA is about:-

1) Promoting recreation flying

2) Safety;

3) Establishing and maintaining administrative systems to conduct flying operations

4) Standard and policy setting for operations and aircraft maintenance

5) Oversight of operations and aircraft maintenance

6) Advocating for its members (eg CTA access, aircraft weight restrictions etc) and

7) Providing member services

Please do not get caught up with what I have or have not included in the list. The point is that the role of the RAA is important, under a commonwealth delegation, and the stewardship of monies should ideally warrant a degree of risk aversion. The RAA has people’s safety and lives at stake.

This then begs the role of the Board in all this. As I see it, the Board is responsible for setting the strategic direction, setting the culture of the organization (including risk tolerance) and monitoring outcomes and performance. I am reasonably confident in saying that the Board may still consider itself in charge of an aero club. The last I saw, staff numbers where around 18 or so and with a turnover in the $millions. The RAA isn’t no Aero Club.

Since there is no published strategic Plan I suspect there is none. Given the administrative hiccups we’ve seen this year I suggest the culture is loose. That is not to say that management and staff are not trying their hardest to provide a good service to members but that administration systems are loose and/or immature, which has come back to bite them. Finally, where’s the Board monitoring of outcome and performance? Do they have an internal audit process to tell them how robust their administrative processes and controls are? Do they look at risk including legal claims, insurance risks, poor CASA audit performance and the withdrawal of delegations, membership satisfaction, contract risk etc. The RAA is not a big organization but the Board needs to look at least at some of these, even if only informally.

I suspect The RAA has grown without regards to its governance. It has focussed on operationational outputs at the cost of looking forward and monitoring performance. Money has come in, surpluses have been earned and they have been ignorant of the need to improve their systems to match the increase in membership and associated accountability or simply been unable to do anything about it because of the pressure of workload. There needs to be a circuit breaker. Whether a consultant is brought in or staff employed or both it doesn’t matter because it is the outcome that counts. I suggest this is where money should be spent.

Then we must turn our attention to the structure of the board but this question has been addressed in other threads.

Cheers

Steve

Steve, we have around 1.8m in retained earnings + profit of around 220k + property at around 1m. So now we have around $2m in retained earnings + $1m property and an annual income of around $2.5m...so I just personally think that we are healthy, we are covered for a very bad year so the concept of "We must make profit" could be relaxed a bit now with investing say $100k or $150k back to the membership OR even better would be to invest in some good marketing which, as I said, would increase our income and round it goes...invest say $20-30k in a National Recreational Aviation Week, if that doesn't get 162 new members from around Australia then I will bare my bum in Bourke Street...so 162 x $185 = $30k payback in just the first year (costs aside) which means every year they remain members is pure bonus income (and extra cost recovery)...not to mention the help it would give to all the struggling schools out there...and the flow on to extra aircraft sold etc etc etc...all for such a small investment when we are making $220k profit with ample cash and property reserves.That's just my "business" thinking

 

When I was doing my MBA, a case study we had was on Coca-Cola. Basically when they really got going is when the "Marketing" manager said if you double my budget, I will triple your profits...they did...and he did

If I was Treasurer I would not be in dissagreement with the figures you are throwing around. Just saying that the equity figure is much less in reality and the RAA should be cognitive of the risk environment it is in. That said, I'd prefer to have some money spent on operating and governance systems so the problems mentioned in other threads are not repeated.

Picking up on Andy's post, I suspect there are no strategic or business plans or even an audit and risk management committee to oversight risk, audits or any other compliance requirement of CASA. It seems that the focus of RAA management has been purely on producing operational outputs (required by membership) with minimal consideration of how to get there (this is a Board obligation), with limited resources (reflected in the accounts), a couple dissappointing senior staff performances and it has come back to bite the the organisation. The aero club scenario mentioned in my last post.

Enough from me.

cheers

Steve

Steve

Steve, you might want to have another look at RAAus assets. There is more cash than you can poke a stick at $1.8 million. You could be right about the building being over valued but the Board and the Auditors have just signed off to say it is OK at $1 million. Natfly costs RAAus about $30,000 but gets Revenue of more than that. It is not any sort of a risk to RAAus reserves. The big risk to Reserves is under insurance of stuff ups by the Board and Staff.The target of 10% surplus each year is the wrong target. The right target is more like your idea of a % of total turnover for one year. Current net assets are virtually 100% of annual turnover and in my view is over the top! It means that fees have been too high for years.

Edit : added a bit

Thanks for your response. I think our views are not too far apart.

As an accountant in the not-for-profit industry, which can be volatile at the best of time, I like to see conservative figures. Board members do not always use business logic and not-for-profit organisations often become dysfunctional and implode. The point I was trying to make, with some over-emphasis I might add, is that the RAA needs reserves and retained earnings. I like to see operating expenses covered but it is not always possible. I am not wedded to any specific amount.

There are 2 points with equity (reserves and retained earnings). The equity comprises cash of $1.8m less liabilities together with fixed assets $1m less provisions, fire sale discounts and any overvalue component (ie market price). This result needs to cover new initiatives not covered by income and risk. I agree that the biggest risk is probably insurance. It is what I inferred with an earlier comment. I still hold to the view that Natfly is also a risk. The cost may only be $30k but the risk of a contractual or third party claims not covered by insurance is still there. Claims associated with events always come out of left field. We can only guess at the other risks, which hopefully are covered in a risk management plan, (or am I kidding myself?).

Not sure that subscriptions are too high. I long ago formed the idea that the RAA is somewhat like a an Aero club that has grown and policy and procedures have not followed suit. More money needs to have been spend on process and procedures that are core to RAA outputs expected by CASA and members. It is the message that is repeated over and over again through the threads.

Cheers

Steve

Steve

The financials look very good to me and when I apply a lot of the financial ratio analysis to them, they are good...however, I would very much argue against what seems to be the "need" for profit. I don't mean make a loss at all but with the total reserves almost equalling the total annual income, I would expect that some of that profit should be getting spent on providing "service" to the members. By service I mean providing maintenance courses, some more investment in marketing as that can come back two fold in income, some assistance to getting new aircraft designs manufactured with some engineering grants, establishing a free fully equipped workshop where RAAus members can take their aircraft and perform maintenance under the watchful eyes of a Level 2 etc etc etc.An organisation will always be rewarded if it invests in their customers.

From a policy perspective I cannot fault you.

Putting my accountants hat on, having worked for a number of major charities and not-for-profit professional member based peak organisations, I always liked to see operating expenditure covered by equity. I didn't always get there but it was an aim. In the not-for-profit industry passion rules and decisions are not often based on a business case or even common sense at times. You need a bit extra in case the Board get a rush of blood. Add to this the risk of an event going bad (eg Natfly) and you want something put away. Also, keep in the back of your mind that equity in the RAA largely comprises fixed assets. To use the reserves etc the RAA will have to fire sale their assets, which will discount the revenue. Further, going back to my earlier email, the office accommodation market in Canberra is soft so the building is probably overvalued.

I could go on about where the focus of the board is at the moment but clearly it is crisis management so it is fair to assume there will be no rush of blood. The Board will probably need to throw some money at getting the problems fixed. Next year's accounts will be interesting. I would not be surprised by a deficit result.

Food for thought.

Cheers

Steve

Thanks for posting that Andy,If this was all, indeed, signed by Steve & Eugene on 30th August 2012, why wasn't all of this available before and at the AGM, including the notes and Auditor's comments?

 

That looks a strange set of circumstances to me.

 

And where has this been signed off by RSM Bird Cameron? I assume that has been left out to save costs Edit .... Ah, there it is on the website and GS has signed that on 30.08.12 as well.

 

SO I ASK AGAIN .....WHY WASN'T THIS ALL PROVIDED AHEAD OF THE AGM AND WHY HAS IT TAKEN ALMOST 3 MONTHS TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE.

 

And why haven't Reid and Tizzard signed the front page?

 

I also note that Runciman's name has been spelt incorrectly twice in the text and corrected once by SR when he signed it. Geeezzzz Louisssse, how hard can it be for our wizzz-banggg leaders to get that right?

 

Regards Geoff

There's a link to the accounts in one of Andy's post with the audit certificate.

Why didn't the accounts go to the AGM. Could only guess but it seems that the Treasurer has stuffed up.

Personally, given the level of interest and emotion around I would have also taken the Auditor along to the AGM with me if I was the Treasurer. Blow the cost, the membership needs independent verification and comfort on the state of the finances. But then again, easy for me to say.

Steve

Just had a look at the full set of accounts on the RAA site. I take comfort that Ged Stenhouse from RSM Bird Cameron has signed the accounts off. Having had to deal with him on many occasions I found him tough. The current ratio is good (so they can pay debts when and as they fall due), receivables are low, equity is good should some of those risks mentioned in other threads come to pass. Only two concerns, those issues raised above and I note that the market for office space in Canberra soft so the building could do with a revaluation.

Cheers

Steve

An audit certificate would have been nice.

Not sure about what the fuss is all about. I operate a very small homebuilt GA aircraft and about 3 times a year get an invoice for landing in Essendon. It seems that someone is using my call sign or has a very similar one and it ends up on my tab. I have never been into Essendon and my aircraft does not have the instruments for it. A quick call to Avdata and the matter is usually resolved in 30 seconds.

Steve

Enoch

I hope the trip went well.

You know that the more you fly the minicab the harder it will be to let it go!

Howard, for what it is worth, I think the honour of Australia's highest airport may go to Caramurra, operated by SMA, and sits 4,800 feet ASL. Also, the Mount Hotham strip is 4,260 feet ASL.

Cheers

Steve

Thanks :) must stop skim reading everything.....

Cheers

Steve

If memory serves me well Ken Garland bought up the rights a few years ago for the vampire. He has a web site and produces the vampire here in Australia. He's involved with the SAAA as well. A 2 seat variant was manufactured in America until a year or so back when it went belly up. A few have been advertised in the RAA mag over the years.

Cheers

Steve

I visited the factory in country Victoria in the 1980s. The design was years ahead of the rag and tube I was used to seeing. The SV11 was one of the later models. From memory, I think he passed away testing an aircraft that had the ailerons hooked up incorrectly. Dont quote me on it though.

Steve

Yeah.....I thought about a formal complaint but when the ASIC agent, the RAA office, was not interested in passing it on I let the issue drop. A letter to the Minister or Department Secretary with the support of an agent will often get traction but without their support I deemed it a waste of time.

To be fair, I should mention the the RAA office was down on staff (because of leave and Steve Bell's resignation) and there was the normal influx of holiday accidents and incidents (eg that idiot doing beat ups over boats on the Hume Weir) so my issue was not, I suspect, of a high priority to them. Anyway, I prefer to just go flying..... with an occasional bleat.

Thanks for your comments.

Cheers

Steve

Dropped my old ASIC and renewal application into the RAA office early November 2011, well before the expiry date. I was hoping for a quick turnaround so I could go crosscountry over Christmas. It seems that the government agency issuing the cards had a machine breakdown. The card was received mid January with a November 2013 expiry. Insult upon injury. Not only did I have to change my Christmas plans but I lost 2.5 months on the renewal date as well. My whinge for the day.

Cheers

Steve

Vev,Did you end up importing?

 

I'm wanting to import a SeaRey form the states because there aren't any second hand one for sale here in oz

 

Is it really as easy as re-registering in oz?

 

If so, I'll book mine tomorrow!

 

Second hand SeaRey from the states as low as US38k! Bargain considering the kit cost min $75k aus.... Then you need to spend 800 hours building it!

 

Regards

 

Mark

There is a SeaRey at Polo Flat, NSW for sale as far as I can tell. I believe David Holgate is selling it. Might be worth a try. I do not know David's number but if you give Mike Apps, the CFI from Snowy Mountain Academy a call, no doubt he'll give you some contact details.

cheers

Steve

Sorry Steve, have a look at "Aircraft takes off unmanned." few threads down from this one.

Steve

Puts a new meaning to securing your aircraft in windy conditions.

http://m.wimp.com/parkedaircraft/

Steve

Well... the whole thing if you could just stick a motor on top and limit it to single seat and fly as per Ra AUS?

Steve

With all the posts of who they were, I am now 99% sure I know Richard - or his family.I went to school with Gordon. His son or brother. I honestly have lost track of time.

 

I also extend my sincerest condolences to the entire family and those who have suffered a loss.

You've got it right. Gordon was the elder brother to Richard.

Sad occassion but good send off yesterday. The attendance of a number of past and present RAA staff was appreciated.

Cheers

Steve