Teckair Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You mean getting six State and two Territory independent Police Forces each to make a special exception? I wouldn't call that easy.ATSB isn't charging GA pilots for investigations. Maybe you are right and the police involved are just plain useless and unhelpful, but they shouldn't be when it is a safety issue. Probably if we could get one or two states on side then the rest would follow suit, I would like to know has anybody even tried? All they have to do is email the investigation results to RAA if this can't be done then the whole deal is a sad joke. ATSB may not be charging GA pilots but will still have to work within a budget which is not likely to be expanded to accommodate RAA pilots any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 I don't think the Police are permitted to release info by law Richard. ATSB are exempt those restrictions which is why we wanted ATSB to run our investigations, really for no other reason. But again this thread is drifting from the purpose I started. Maybe if we can't get responsible action from the board, the best remedy for the membership is to use the constitution to hold the Board accountable. The problem is the current constitution makes it difficult for members to do so because the Board are not required to run any more than one general meeting per year which is currently the AGM. This effectively means we can only ask questions of the Board in a public forum at the AGM. This is really a poor provision for an association of members. Of course the Board could call a General meeting at any time, but why would they if it would open them up to scrutiny by the members? Why do the Board avoid a GM at Temora? If you add to this the requirement for 5% of members (currently around 500) to call a special general meeting (you would be lucky to find 500 members that were prepared to sign even if you knew where to find them), it is obvious the constitution has a number of provisions that do not serve the interests of the members well at all. Couple this with the Board withdrawing support for the CRC (constitutional review committee) to commence immediate work for the next AGM and then ask yourselves why? The CRC unanimously formed by a Board resolution in its February meeting has effectively been hobbled by the Board as the Board support has been withdrawn. However we, the remaining members of the CRC, (tragically David Hunt now deceased) had agreed to proceed independently on a few critical matters on which we will need your voting support at the AGM. Will you support us? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Sorry David, too slow in typing, this was an answer to Teckair. The Police aren't useless, doing what you suggest would require major restructuring, funding and developing an investigation protocol which is standard across the six States and two Territories, and training staff to be aviation investigators. We are interested in recreational flying, but it would be discriminating not to give rock fishermen, mountain climbers for example the same investigation level because they die too, and it would be never ending and difficult to get the skill level required for the odd State flying fatality or serious injury The alternative of the ATSB provides an operation with skilled investigators at a National level, arms length separation from CASA and RAA, and a great history of reducing repeat accidents. Also remember that the number of GA aircraft has reduced almost in the same proportion that RAA aircraft have increased. However, this thread was not about the merits of how RAA accidents should be investigated, you weren't even asked about that by the board members. It's about Elected officials issuing an instruction to one of your paid employees, who is alleged to have totally disregarded it. If true, then you aren't in control. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Sorry David, too slow in typing, this was an answer to Teckair. The Police aren't useless, doing what you suggest would require major restructuring, funding and developing an investigation protocol which is standard across the six States and two Territories, and training staff to be aviation investigators. We are interested in recreational flying, but it would be discriminating not to give rock fishermen, mountain climbers for example the same investigation level because they die too, and it would be never ending and difficult to get the skill level required for the odd State flying fatality or serious injury The alternative of the ATSB provides an operation with skilled investigators at a National level, arms length separation from CASA and RAA, and a great history of reducing repeat accidents. Also remember that the number of GA aircraft has reduced almost in the same proportion that RAA aircraft have increased. However, this thread was not about the merits of how RAA accidents should be investigated, you weren't even asked about that by the board members. It's about Elected officials issuing an instruction to one of your paid employees, who is alleged to have totally disregarded it. If true, then you aren't in control. Oops, sorry Turbs, I hit the wrong reply thingy and I don't know how to fix it. I meant to hit David's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I don't think the Police are permitted to release info by law Richard. ATSB are exempt those restrictions which is why we wanted ATSB to run our investigations, really for no other reason.But again this thread is drifting from the purpose I started. Maybe if we can't get responsible action from the board, the best remedy for the membership is to use the constitution to hold the Board accountable. But the current constitution makes it difficult for members to do so because the Board are not required to run any more than one general meeting per year which is the AGM. This effectively means we can only ask questions of the Board in a public forum at the AGM. This is really a poor provision for an association of members. Of course the Board could call a General meeting at any time, but why would they if it would open them up to scrutiny by the members? Why do the Board avoid a GM at Temora? If you add to this the requirement for 5% of members to call a special general meeting where the board could be called to account on any matter; the constitution has a number of provisions that do not serve the interests of the members well at all. Couple this with the Board withdrawing support for the CRC (constitutional review committee) to commence immediate work for the next AGM and then ask yourselves why? The CRC unanimously formed by the Board in its February meeting has effectively been hobbled by the Board as the Board support has been withdrawn. However we the remaining members of the CRC (tragically David Hunt now deceased) had agreed to proceed independently on a few critical matters on which we will need your voting support at the AGM. Will you support us? The question is, will I support you? The answer is: YES!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 However we the remaining members of the CRC (tragically David Hunt now deceased) had agreed to proceed independently on a few critical matters on which we will need your voting support at the AGM. Will you support us? Yes but would need to know what I was supporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damkia Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Before even considering abandoning any input by ATSB, consider the effect of having no investigation by a specialist investigation team of a fatal accident would have on your loved ones (I bet you have NEVER openly discussed it with them...). Surely they would WANT answers? If a previous accident or near miss event was not fully investigated, would your death from exactly the same cause later on have been for nothing???? $500 well spent per year, if that's what it is going to cost. If you can afford $50+K for a plane, $2000+ for insurance, and ??? for running costs/yr, you CAN afford $500/yr for continuous improvement and mandated investigations of incidents. Who knows, in the long run it may go towards lowering your insurance by a roughly equivalent amount Maybe it is time for a big clean up of sloppy attitudes, poor management, and selfishness. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballpoint 246niner Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I am sure we all agree with that Bruce .... again that moves away from the very clear point I was making.In this instance it happens to be the subject of ATSB involvement, but the real point was that the Board gave management a directive, management did not act on the directive and the Board has done nothing to hold the management accountable. That is the reall issue. It is not an issue on the merits of ATSB involvement. You're spot on David, politics was never my strong point but any board and it's representative majority, and or staff in conflict is a recipe for disaster. No argument there..... Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Whoops, sorry Neil, I confused you with SfGnome ... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Yes but would need to know what I was supporting. Absolutely you do and we intend to have the suggestions with options published in advance in the Sport Pilot mag with the reasons supporting them and put to the Board as a special resolution at the AGM. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Absolutely you do and we intend to have the suggestions with options published in advance in the Sport Pilot mag with the reasons supporting them and put to the Board as a special resolution at the AGM. What is required to provide the support? Do we need to attend the AGM? If so where and when is the AGM? Can people who cannot attend the AGM still provide support? Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 What is required to provide the support? Do we need to attend the AGM? If so where and when is the AGM? Can people who cannot attend the AGM still provide support?Richard. Not being a professionally trained person, it seems to me that following this dialogue a few points stand out. I have been on various sporting committees as president and board chairman over many years. (retired) I remember one instance when the Manager was tardy in acting on the boards instructions. I got the secretary to add a list of the actions required summarised at the bottom of the minutes, this was reviewed at the next board meeting to discuss what action had been taken. So, if the board met monthly as we did, any action not taken would have to be explained to the board. This method worked well and we got the results (or reasonable excuses) and was a pending issue if not finalised. If the above has been done which I assume would be a standard procedure it leaves the question of are the board tardy, inexperienced or is the CEO not following the directions? The board can sack the CEO I believe if written warnings are served outlining the noncompliance of directions. The possible answer is to have board members who have some experience at meetings. As we all know that it takes a time to settle in to the new surroundings to get a feel of the job required of you. This is a great organisation. Too good to stuff-up MHO 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You raise a good question JP, if the Minutes reflect the actions requested by a decision of board members, and those requests are followed up, as you have done, then there is an incentive for a manager to keep his nose clean so to speak. If he consistently doesn't carry out the instructions without reasonable excuses, then there is a list of issues on which to get tougher - a lot more precise. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 .... What is required to provide the support? Do we need to attend the AGM? If so where and when is the AGM? Can people who cannot attend the AGM still provide support? ... Richard, The AGM will be held on September 22 somewhere on the Gold Coast this year and certainly attending in person is an execellent idea. Any proposed changes to the constitutional must be put as 'special resolutions' to the members at the AGM or any Special General Meeting called for that purpose . Special resolutions must be advertised to the members prior to the meeting in the notice of meeting called for that purpose. These special resolutions can either be adopted as put or rejected, they cannot be modified by those in attendance at the AGM. Only special resolutions that have prior notice to the members can be voted on at the AGM. That is why any proposed change should ideally have some pre-meeting circulation along with the reasons the proposed changes are put forward. They also need to be carefully worded otherwise they may not be able to be adopted. This allows the members to make an informed vote on the matter. You do not need to be in attendance at the AGM to vote as the special resolutions will be forwarded to all members for either a postal vote or for the members to give their proxy to an attending financial member of RA Aus to vote on their behalf. Unfortunately the proxy voting provisions in the constitution also need a little tidy up. Any special resolution does not need Board approval to be put to the members at a meeting, so any members can put a resolution forward. We were hoping to co-ordinate our efforts on the CRC through the Board to make things a little smoother, but the Board has seen fit to rescind their February motion to form the CRC. This could effectively be taken to mean that the Board does not support any special resolutions for constitutional change at the next AGM which is some what difficult to fathom. You can draw your own conclusions from the Board's action. This obviously does not prevent those of us on the CRC with or without others from putting any special resolution for constitutional change to the members whether in attendance at the AGM or not. I hope that explanation helps. Regards, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You can have a board rescind a previous motion but it is not too straight forward. It has something to do with a majority of those that voted for it previously or something like that. David I thought they had to have 3 meetings annually as a minimum, one of which could be the AGM? I can't see that they CAN refuse a properly notified PROPOSAL in the form of a resolution at any General meeting. ALL members have to be notified something like 21 days prior to the GM and it has to be on the agenda as an item. The AGM has to be advertised similarly, and the proposed change should/ could go out with it. You should get to present it and call for a seconder. Without a seconder for the motion it would not be discussed, so you would pre-arrange that with a rep. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You raise a good question JP, if the Minutes reflect the actions requested by a decision of board members, and those requests are followed up, as you have done, then there is an incentive for a manager to keep his nose clean so to speak. If he consistently doesn't carry out the instructions without reasonable excuses, then there is a list of issues on which to get tougher - a lot more precise. I agree, that is the way to go, except that as Nev says if only 3 meetings a year, this would not give adequate board control over directions, policies or CEO behaviour For an organisation with vast responsibilities it seems to me that most of the work and decisions are left to the manager in the boards absence, which under the current scenario is what we are facing. Give the board a stipend, change the constitution, more frequent meetings (to regain control ) of the organisation and then don't blame the cart for hitting the fence! IMHO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Folks. The problem is the constitution only requires one general meeting of members per year and in our case that is the AGM. The Board only physically meet twice a year and that is all the constitution requires, the rest is done via electronic means. In both cases these constitutional provisions are totally inadequate especially since we are an association of members ... how can we get good communication and transparency from a Board who is only required by the constitution to face the membership once a year and constructively avoids a general meeting at Temora where there is a gathering of substantial numbers of members? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Folks.The problem is the constitution only requires one general meeting of members per year and in our case that is the AGM. The Board only physically meet twice a year and that is all the constitution requires, the rest is done via electronic means. In both cases these constitutional provisions are totally inadequate especially since we are an association of members ... how can we get good communication and transparency from a Board who is only required by the constitution to face the membership once a year and constructively avoids a general meeting at Temora where there is a gathering of substantial numbers of members? Hullo!... Why would the people running our association want to prevent us having meetings?... Nah, it wouldn't be a control thing would it?... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 How could you suggest that Wayne! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 IMHO there are two stand out issues that need immediate change in our constitution (there are clearly more than two but two that need immediate rectification by the members to protect the members rights). The Board has an immediate responsibility to rectify the Junior member issue and there does not appear to be any activity in this regard and considering they have rescinded the motion to form the CRC we should be asking them what they plan to do about their stuff up constitutionally, but they are on their own now. The two issues I am immediately concerned with are issues that enshrine the rights of members to call meetings and the Board's obligation to call general meetings. Firstly we need to change the constitution to require the Board to call at least two General meetings per year and there would be little impost to do so; the most obvious would be to call a properly constituted general meeting at Natfly. The notion that all Board members must attend a General Meeting and the excuse not to hold one at Natfly based on cost is absolute nonsense on two counts: Firstly not all the Board is required to attend (but we may ask why they would not attend ... could it be to avoid scrutiny from 'outspoken' members like me); and secondly ... what is the Board function, is it not to represent and report affairs to members or do I expect too much .... The second issue that is problematic is that the constitution currently requires 5% of members (5% of 10,000) to sign a request for a Special General meeting should the need arise. I would suggest from what we are seeing from current management that may well likely arise unless the Board holds management accountable. The problem is that if there was a genuine need to call a Special General meeting it would be impossible to get 500 signatures to do so. To start with we have no access to the contact details of members and many are so apathetic in their attitude that it is possible there may not be 500 members that care. The constitution of an Incorporated association is required to protect the interests and rights of members ... how is that vaguely possible with such an onerous requirement to call a Special General meeting. The number of members required to call a special general meeting needs to be reasonably difficult to obtain so that special general meetings cannot be called by a handful of members with private agendas, but must be a number reasonably achievable such that genuine general interests of members can be addressed. I will strongly suggest that the current provisions to call Special General meetings are so onerous that they deny the members Natural Justice. Regards, 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It is conceivable you couldn't get 500 members unless there is some really obvious OUTSTANDING ISSUE that "gets" to everyone. Confronting the board at someplace doesn't grab me either. A lot of people don't like that approach (Me included) . It can get out of hand, and if it is a complex matter, just doesn't work. A meeting has to be run by a chairman and the meeting has the right to appoint it's own chairman, who goes by the ordinary rules of precedence of motions and rules of debate. The best outcomes are from a situation where there is order, a set agenda ( Not a secret one) and preparation with all the facts available. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 That is the only way it can be and should be done Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Absolutely you do and we intend to have the suggestions with options published in advance in the Sport Pilot mag with the reasons supporting them and put to the Board as a special resolution at the AGM. I suggest all thinking people should read the next magazine with the above suggestions and plan their course of action. Remember if you do nothing you have no right to complain about RAA problems or issues. Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 If only everyone accepted that Teckair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I suggest all thinking people should read the next magazine with the above suggestions and plan their course of action. Remember if you do nothing you have no right to complain about RAA problems or issues.Richard. when i made a writen compaint to raa about a level 2 lame just a civil mattermy plane was was being used for abitno training holding my self acountable as to the storch not being in a safe flyable condition as the person that had sighned the maitainence release had sighned it out with bent engine frame tear in leading edge of wing bent rudder peddles no weight and ballance done after repair not rigged right egt not working flap indercator not working crack in windscreen i took it out off service flying hours 270 from march o7 aug 07 while on line at shepparton at this time shepp had 2 gazelles ctw and jab all online talk about pass the buck no dont get me started on accountabilty responsabilty legal action seems to be the in thing these days it is no wonder that i am geting phone calls about repaires done to planes that are ilegal and down right dangerous who i the hell cares not me says the seller it is sighned out as airworthy or somebody said it was a good buy i could have sold my plane after it was repaired and not told the buyer that the plane had problems put it into a flying school then the school crashes it their problem as for the raa to write to me and say civel matter not on 8th sept roll on court day the action begins neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now