Jump to content

The shiny new-look RAA?


Recommended Posts

That is true , and I expect the "New Look management" people would have expected a better result in that area. I'm more concerned to see where CASA will go. That has the biggest effect on people staying or going with Non Airline aviation.is the impression I'm getting. Nev

Apart from not changing because of your past issues with them, why would CASA be "going" anywhere.

They remain an arm's length organisation overseen by a diluting government department, committed to ICAO compliance, and except for the few rule flouters who get into trouble, and a laziness in tidying up their explanatory mess, don't really feature in the day to day issues of pilots of today.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We have been hoodwinked by people headhunted to bring RAA into what CASA want us to be.

Bill, are you saying that the Board was headhunted (presumably by CASA)? If that is your proposition, I wonder if Frank Marriott would agree with the suggestion that he was headhunted. I doubt that he would, I think Frank is has too much integrity to have allowed that to happen. The logical implication of your suggestion is that the election result was manipulated by the headhunters. Really?

 

We have no effective voice anymore to have input into our future all engineered by Monke and Co.

I have to disagree with you there Bill. We (meaning members of the RAA) DO have an effective voice and input into our future. It's called an election. All the members have to do is get off their backsides and vote!

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Make no mistake - there is a simmering scepticism amongst many of the members I know and from strangers I meet on my travels relating directly to recent past events and the actions/directions of the current chairman and board. Very few of those I know post on this forum, but they are out there silently watching RAA transform into something no one ever thought would come from our very own management. We have been hoodwinked by people headhunted to bring RAA into what CASA want us to be. We have no effective voice anymore to have input into our future all engineered by Monke and Co. He will go down in history as the single biggest destroyer of recreational flying ever.

Yes Bill those silent ones and they vote with their feet.

See F_T made a good comment he thought RAAus should be bigger than it is -- he is saying a small growth (Hmmmmm) -- that one is hard to calculate as figure and numbers bounce about quicker than these current tennis balls.

 

Yes Bill those disheartened ones and I would like to know the current view of those who voted "yes" to the change.

 

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who voted Yes, did at least vote. I wonder how many of those simmering sceptics voted.

 

I had my say here and directly to RAAus in the run up to voting and it did not one iota of good.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how many of the 9,000 actually knew what they were voting for or against.

Just to clarify Turbs - there weren' t 9000 votes cast. The majority of members of the RAA didn't vote either for or against anything. The majority of members weren't bothered to vote at all.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to clarify Turbs - there weren' t 9000 votes cast. The majority of members of the RAA didn't vote either for or against anything. The majority of members weren't bothered to vote at all.

But you can't allow those who didn't vote to be used by those who didn't support the proposition as part of the anti team. If we used that logic the board election for RAA would be regarded as inconclusive and no-one would get elected. I don't know how many voted but probably less than 10%.

By the same token I haven't seen a huge (if any) write-in vote for Team ELAAA.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to clarify Turbs - there weren' t 9000 votes cast. The majority of members of the RAA didn't vote either for or against anything. The majority of members weren't bothered to vote at all.

I wonder how many of the 9,000 actually knew what they were voting for or against.

For the three who didn’t understand the context;

Of the members entitled to vote, which may or may not have amounted to approximately 9,000, i wonder how many knew what they were voting for, for or against.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact: the result was decided by 800 proxy votes solicited by a couple of people at our expense - admittedly those who gave the proxy votes had the opportunity to not do so, so they were legal votes.

I drove to Canberra and voted in person.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact: the result was decided by 800 proxy votes solicited by a couple of people at our expense - admittedly those who gave the proxy votes had the opportunity to not do so, so they were legal votes.

Not necessarily; it would depend on what they were told, and the circumstances.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily; it would depend on what they were told, and the circumstances.

It could also depend on what they found out and decided for themselves as competent adults. I think we need to give ALL those who voted credit for some level of intelligence and perhaps accept that they made their OWN decision as to how they would vote. I didn't see many members being bussed to the meeting and I certainly wasn't canvassed, other than through the candidates statements in the magazine. Was I one of the few who escaped the attention of the headhunters?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact: the result was decided by 800 proxy votes solicited by a couple of people at our expense - admittedly those who gave the proxy votes had the opportunity to not do so, so they were legal votes.

.......OR........ Could these votes, have been bought with a couple of stubbies?

KP

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
.......OR........ Could these votes, have been bought with a couple of stubbies?KP

Too far Keith.

Yes the collection of proxies on a round oz member drive showing only the positives all funded by the members was not exactly even handed BUT to even suggest they were bought is in my opinion beyond the pale as an accusation.

 

I think you’re better off putting your energy into the ELAAA and promoting a positive image of the alternate rather than taking very questionable shots at RAAus management

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
It could also depend on what they found out and decided for themselves as competent adults. I think we need to give ALL those who voted credit for some level of intelligence and perhaps accept that they made their OWN decision as to how they would vote. I didn't see many members being bussed to the meeting and I certainly wasn't canvassed, other than through the candidates statements in the magazine. Was I one of the few who escaped the attention of the headhunters?

He was referring to the legality of the vote.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact: the result was decided by 800 proxy votes solicited by a couple of people at our expense - admittedly those who gave the proxy votes had the opportunity to not do so, so they were legal votes.

Just thinking this over based on what you've said:

1. If there was a substantial travel cost, this should have been approved by the board members prior to the travel taking place.

 

2. I assume two board members were involved in the travelling and any soliciting of proxy votes, and there were no employees involved.

 

3. To avoid any claims of vote stacking by proxies, there would have needed to be VERY clear, and correct, "for" and "against" cases.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's too late for that Turbs. That claim has already been published here (ref: post 284).

That post does not equate to vote stacking and without concrete proof I would be a little careful in accusing people of that. Severe lack of interest ion the members part was the reason for the vote as it was, not unsubstantiated rumours of vote stacking etc. How about proving statements instead of stirring the pot with unsubstantiated quotes and statements.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all very well criticising the "legality " of the vote, but until members get interested enough to actually vote then any complaints, moans etc about the \vote, the performance of canberra or rules etc, are unfounded as you are governed by those that elected them. (could actually be bothered to vote.

 

""No good complaining that you are up to your a.se in alligators when you forgot to drain the swamp""

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not a lot. Apathy reigns. Structurally what remedial action was possible with what we were presented with. I still say what you have is ALL you have so keep your eyes peeled and attend meetings or whatever. I don't like your chances as matters are nearly completely removed from your hands. Casa has everything to do with what we are doing, and every other GA Operator in the aviation scene as well..

 

Re the CASA, EVERYBODY in the game and every enquiry has listed myriad short comings But they don't get addressed. THAT is a fact so as things are, it is not satisfactory or good for Aviation in Australia . Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coljones. You say you haven’t see much promoting ELAAA. That would be because CASA have not given it approval yet.

 

I believe ELAAA will be good, based on the fact that I know the people putting it together. They are in my opinion, trying to make our flying easier.

 

I do not personally know RAAus board members apart from occasionally meeting some of them. The one I met at a safety seminar didn’t impress me at all. He seemed to be out of touch with what goes on.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is any truth in the thoughts of members that CASA are the puppeteers of RAA, and the path ahead is all doom and gloom. then the length in time that ELAAA are waiting for their approval, may just add weight to that argument.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact that CASA had the power to audit RAA airworthiness documentation and ground RAA aircraft - both specific aircraft AND at least one entire manufacturer's line - is surely sufficient proof of the fact that ANY Sports Aviation organisation operates at the remit of CASA. To suggest otherwise is at worst specious, and if done by an organisation purporting to offer a 'better way' of managing their slice of the Sports Aviation 'pie', it is either naive in the extreme or wilfully misleading.

 

Those with knowledge of the legal action taken by the family of one of the deceased following the double-fatal Sting accident near Goulburn ( and I do not intend to go into any discussion of that, it has been covered elsewhere) are aware that BOTH RAA and CASA were joined as defendants, for very sound legal reasons. Given CASA's history of, and strong corporate emphasis in terms of resources applied to, evading blame for anything that happens in Aviation, it is ridiculous (and possibly mendacious) for any organisation to suggest, even obliquely, that it can operate other than by dancing to the tune CASA plays.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
The simple fact that CASA had the power to audit RAA airworthiness documentation and ground RAA aircraft - both specific aircraft AND at least one entire manufacturer's line - is surely sufficient proof of the fact that ANY Sports Aviation organisation operates at the remit of CASA. To suggest otherwise is at worst specious, and if done by an organisation purporting to offer a 'better way' of managing their slice of the Sports Aviation 'pie', it is either naive in the extreme or wilfully misleading.Those with knowledge of the legal action taken by the family of one of the deceased following the double-fatal Sting accident near Goulburn ( and I do not intend to go into any discussion of that, it has been covered elsewhere) are aware that BOTH RAA and CASA were joined as defendants, for very sound legal reasons. Given CASA's history of, and strong corporate emphasis in terms of resources applied to, evading blame for anything that happens in Aviation, it is ridiculous (and possibly mendacious) for any organisation to suggest, even obliquely, that it can operate other than by dancing to the tune CASA plays.

Several classes of flying are exempted from certain aviation regulations which would have prohibited them from flying, including RAA.

This has occurred by CASA issuing exemptions, so yes, CASA has total overall control and issues the guidelines, which are available for anyone to research.

 

The method CASA has used is to allow Self Administering Aviation Organisations (SAAO) to fly to these guidelines.

 

The self administering organisation, as its name implies is expected to organise and manage the group to conduct the activity in an orderly and safe manner, and is responsible for risk.

 

If the guidelines are being adhered to, and the risks are being managed there is no reason for a government, or arms length government body (like CASA) to become involved with the day to day operations of the SAAO; if they do they defeat one of the original purposes, which was to offload public liability on to the people creating the risks.

 

So the overview is that RAA Pilots fly within the envelope and rules set down by RAA, and if they do that RAA will be complying with the guide lines set down by CASA, and CASA get get on with their day to day business in other areas.

 

Where it becomes known to CASA that the SAAO is not complying with its guidelines then CASA has powers to bring things back into compliance.

 

This can be done by Audit, or issuing a directive, or any other legal means.

 

Whether that's exciting or depressing depends on your personality I guess.

 

If the SAAO management is on the ball there is no reason for gloom and doom to exist.

 

The Sting crash started out as an engine failure, and unsuccessful forced landing.

 

The legal action taken in the Sting case appears to have related to the condition of the engine when it failed, and who was responsible for that condition, and since CASA have retained responsibility for engine certification, it may have been logical for them to have been joined in the action.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...