RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again

[fly_tornado]

The RAA really has 12 months to sort this out. I can see the scenario where a lot of planes have bad paper and the RAA will be letting the rego lapse to avoid the expense of sorting out the paper. Think about the task ahead for the RAA over the next year, 20 odd planes every business day need all their paperwork checking to renew the registration.

 

 

[shags_j]

A big job that should never have needed to be done

 

 

[Fatman1238]

There is supposedly to be a meeting tomorrow between CASA & RAAus to sort this s$it out, is what we little people are being told.If any of you have had the privelege of flying across this beautifful country to Birdsville, & taxied down to the end of the airstrip, where you could walk over to the pub a few steps away, to quench a must needed thirst, there is a sign on the wall that reads:

 

"Free beer tomorow"

 

Don't hold your breath fellows & gals that all will be fixed with the waving of the magic wand tomorrow at this window dressing meeting, because what we may see in the window is not what is actually going on behind the curtains which is an ugly saga which RAAus does not want us to see the real picture.

 

I say again that if the elected RAAus Board members & CEO have the guts & fortitude to face this disaster head on , then they should appoint an interim Adminsitrator in the meantime , then they should resign & for the interim Administrator to call an extroadinary general meeting for a new board to be elected & for those existing Board members who have a conscience & are directly responsibile for there incompoetence & negligence for having allowed the RAAus to be brought into disrepute, then they should voluntarily stand aside to exlude themselves from nominating for the new Board & furthermore ,just as they have previously decided in their so called wisdom to try & exclude the renewal of this sites admininstrator from renewing his membership, which efforts failed, & its like pissing in the wind, because what goes around comes around, then they should now step aside & have the best interests of the RAAus at heart to let the organisation progress rather than trying to protect their own asses.

Nicely put John, bring on a new board.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Nicely put John, bring on a new board.

Couldn't agree more, however, I am a little concerned as to where we are going to get a dedicated, efficient and knowledgeable board from.

 

Alan.

 

 

[facthunter]

I was thinking along the same lines Alan. This show is not like your local bowls club. People running it have to have a fair amount of knowledge about aviation and management skills. etc amd be motivated. Why anyone would offer to go on the board beats me. When something blows up the worst is often assumed. In the current situation there has been some form demonstrated, so One could be forgiven for wondering if things can get worse. Any pilot can be failed on a check and if the audit is made diffficult there is no way you will make that also. I believe the legalese involved in this game is impossible to fathom. CAR's etc are not written for pilots in the field. They are for lawyers. 5 CASA "experts" will sometimes give you five different answers.. Nev

 

 

[bilby54]

I do feel for the people caught in the middle of this but I would think this process may only take a matter of weeks rather than the whole world collapsing in on itself. There of course after this maybe certain aircraft that will not be able to fly and this is where things can get snakey about the previous paper work trails and compliance and who let it through or whatever. So long as the majority is fixed first..the easy fixes I mean then the more complicated ones will need to be sorted out...Members want to keep flying this is the core of what we like to do ... the paperwork warfare part is always the most unpleasant

Perhaps it has not been fully understood but there are going to be legal actions brought about by the groundings. Depending on how the owners decide to fight the case it could be either ten or so individual cases at several hundred thousand dollars each or one big one at a several million that will cause a serious depletion of the coffers (that we do not have the financials on)

 

Just imagine - and it is entirely possible - that a very popular, many, many owner aircraft brand was grounded so that hundreds of cases were to be brought against the organisation. How do think everyone would react then. To say that so long as the majority are fixed first does not cut it for several owners - spare a thought for those who have been grounded and facing serious financial hardship and health issues as a result. These are the people we should be supporting

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

Well isnt it great to finally hear from a board rep good on you John McK you get 10 out of 10 for that. Could have been a bit sooner though. Now to only hear something from our SA rep who promised us so much when he wanted our vote

I have to take exception to this comment. No Board Member is required to have any input onto this Website. And if a Board Member chooses NOT to have any input, then that's up them and they certainly cant be seen in a negative light because of that. It's not an official RA-Aus Site, it's a site for aviation enthusiasts to chat and discuss issues - much like is occurring here in this thread. If a Board member chooses to provide some input on here - fine. I happen to know our SA Rep quite well - call me biased if you like - and you have no bloody idea how hard he (and no doubt others) work to try to help our organisation. On an average day when I see our Board Member, he'll receive many RA-Aus related phone calls.

 

Rumors and innuendo do nothing to help our organisation. If you want to know more, ring your Board Member and ask them direct. In the meantime, give them the support they need to help our organisation deal with the challenges it faces. Ring them and ask "what can we do to help" instead of "you're hopeless lets sack you all"

 

Internet forum bickering, calls for sacking the Board etc ad nauseum, are divisive and disruptive. Besides you cant sack the board - they're volunteers - you can have them un-volunteer, which is what a lot of them will do if this negativity toward them continues. If you think you can do better put your name up for election... (Robert - general comment not aimed at you in particular)

 

 

[dodo]

SAJabflyer,

 

that is a fair and good summary of the forums use and purpose, and RA board members may use or ignore the forum as they choose.

 

However, my experience on contacting a board member was less satisfactory than yours. I saw on the RA-Aus website that registrations have been suspended, and I contacted a board member, they told me to check the website for updates...

 

And the board gets cranky about rumours? Its the only information we get!

 

dodo

 

 

[AM397]

SAJabiruflyer,

 

But the problem is that they haven't really been open from the get-go. Quite contrarily, they seem to constantly attempt to dive under the covers, and with no or very little information out there, of course members are pissed off. No-one knows just how big a problem this is, but failing three audits in a row, stopping renewals and registrations makes downplaying the problem or even trying to not say anything because" [we're] not required to" smacks of no-one on the board knowing what another member of the board is up to. The Ian incident bears this out as well. It was yet another warning sign.

 

So, yes, there might be some who put a lot of work in, but that doesn't mean that they all do, or that it is administred (spl?) properly. You can have employees that work their arse off, but if they're not supervised properly it doesn't matter when it comes to the bottom line. It just shows that it doesn't matter how good an individual is, it's the sum of parts that matters. And from what I can see, that sum of parts does not make a well oiled machine. There's at least a couple of cogs that needs to changed and adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately it seems that those cogs are critical parts of the operation.

 

 

[ave8rr]

I have to take exception to this comment. No Board Member is required to have any input onto this Website. And if a Board Member chooses NOT to have any input, then that's up them and they certainly cant be seen in a negative light because of that. It's not an official RA-Aus Site, it's a site for aviation enthusiasts to chat and discuss issues - much like is occurring here in this thread. If a Board member chooses to provide some input on here - fine. I happen to know our SA Rep quite well - call me biased if you like - and you have no bloody idea how hard he (and no doubt others) work to try to help our organisation. On an average day when I see our Board Member, he'll receive many RA-Aus related phone calls.Rumors and innuendo do nothing to help our organisation. If you want to know more, ring your Board Member and ask them direct. In the meantime, give them the support they need to help our organisation deal with the challenges it faces. Ring them and ask "what can we do to help" instead of "you're hopeless lets sack you all"

Internet forum bickering, calls for sacking the Board etc ad nauseum, are divisive and disruptive. Besides you cant sack the board - they're volunteers - you can have them un-volunteer, which is what a lot of them will do if this negativity toward them continues. If you think you can do better put your name up for election... (Robert - general comment not aimed at you in particular)

SAJabflyer, I dont think any RAAus members on here wanted board members to come on this site and state what was going on. What they (the members) wanted was for the RAAus website to be continuously updated. It was 24 or 48 hours prior to the first notice on the RAAus website that roumors started to fly around that there was a problem with aircraft registrations. This should of come from the executive as soon as they new there was a problem. It all goes back to communication or lack of for a long time now.

 

I get the feeling that alot of the board members do not really know what is going on most of the time. There are two or three in the RAAus office trying to do everything and it is not working.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Oh dear ... now it is all our fault ... we caused it by all the rumour and innuendo which turned out to have a fair basis in truth ... but how would we know ... the Board does not collectively communicate with the members. When I put questions to the Board at the AGM what did I get? A load of avoidance and redirecting and in a few cases no answer at all.

 

Clearly we the members have got it all wrong and the Board is entirely not responsible for the mess we are in ... give me a break .... what do you think we are all bloody imbeciles?

 

Interesting how the outcomes are usually the fruit of the input.

 

Of course NO board member is required to say anything on any forum, but John is the only one with any balls prepared to attempt communication during this difficult time on a forum obviously laced with pissed off members.

 

We failed four CASA audits??? What did we do after we failed the first three ... sit on our hands? Why not communicate with the general membership and explain the problems and seek volunteer help from the wide skill base in the membership?

 

Cannot do that if you do not communicate. Sacking the whole board is not the general consensus, but you might start at the executive, then put an appropriately qualified administrator in place and put the Board on notice.

 

 

[AM397]

We failed four CASA audits???

Four!!? I thought it was "only" three

 

 

[David Isaac]

Four!!? I thought it was "only" three

Either way it was three or four too many ....

 

 

[AM397]

Either way it was three or four too many ....

Yep, you're absolutely right.

 

 

[Ches]

Its iinteresting to hear that some borad members DON'T realise what their position means. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING that happens in RA-AUS.

 

This latest incident (failure of 3rd audit) should not have happend if ALL BOARDMEMBERS ACTED to make those responsible for audit failure to get it right.

 

 

[flyerme]

Its iinteresting to hear that some borad members DON'T realise what their position means. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING that happens in RA-AUS.This latest incident (failure of 3rd audit) should not have happend if ALL BOARDMEMBERS ACTED to make those responsible for audit failure to get it right.

I get a feeling NOT all board(state)members know whats going on..again this would mean admin (H.Q) not communicating.?

Also I think the point that most refer to in reguards to Johns post is NOT the fact he posted on HERE,but the fact he was willing to give us some honest info at all..

 

much appreciated John thanks mate,,pitty our official web site couldn,t do the same!

 

Also in reading ALL the posts I don,t believe any NEG comments about the board are directed at Local/state volenteers.. it seem to all point to H.Q,and seems most of our gripe as it stands now is mostly communication..or lack there of.

 

 

[johnm]

That's a good summary flyerme

 

Also, what worries me the most (I'm not attempting to be scare mongering) is that where IBIS planes are grounded - that there may be 'other types' that could also be grounded ................... I have heard no whispers but under the present set of circumstances and lack of information ................... this could perhaps be a slight probability

 

I know its a 'subjective comment' but considering this current position we are in ..................................... ?

 

Only time will tell

 

 

[AM397]

I have to say, it takes a special kind of naivity to think there aren't problems with the paperwork of other types/individual planes.

 

It seems to be a systemic and endemic failure of the registration administration.

 

 

[Admin]

There are so many stories going around it is frightening to every one of us.

 

Heard that a CFI was told by a NSW Board Member that everything going on was the fault of the Girls in the Office...good on you Dave Caban for selling out our working staff. Also heard that he said that CASA have said that if RAAus get rid of one of the main culprits in all this, Steve Tizzard, that CASA will take over RAAus straight away...Good on ya yet again Dave Caban.

 

Also was told the next thing that has failed is the recording of the number of hours flown when we renew our Pilot Certificates and that every RAAus Pilot is going to be grounded until they produce copies of their log book to support their number of hours flown...don't know who started that one...was that you again Dave Caban?

 

There is also someone going around telling people that RAAus has had to engage 4 Consultants at $200 an hour and it is going to send RAAus broke (no Dave Caban, I hear you are innocent of that porky)...but what a load of absolute rubbish and crap...one consultant was engaged and I doubt very much that with $1m in reserve that this issue is not going to get sorted out before $1m is spent on one single consultant...if it is then HEY, I am available, can start 9am tomorrow morning.

 

The point is that we must listen to what is being said but also at the same time keep an open mind...we are not kept informed of exactly what the issues are however we do know some facts and that is RAAus HAVE failed 3 Audits, RAAus have NOT heeded the requirements of CASA, and that RAAus is being run by an Executive and CEO who we in our complacent and apathetic attitude allowed them to put us in this position.

 

I have continually said that we are not a club type of Association with a handful of members...we ARE a business and therefore deserve to place in our management people who are professional and capable before we are one day in the coming future completely destroyed...perhaps even by one single event!

 

 

[Captain]

I get a feeling NOT all board(state)members know whats going on..again this would mean admin (H.Q) not communicating.?

I suspect that there is also a problem with the communication from the Executive to the Board, with the Board not having the knowledge or nuts to drive the Executive and/or the so-called CEO to perform adequately.

 

It has always looked to me that there is an inner sanctum/clique at Exec level in RAA that think that they are above working within the normal constraints of good governance between a Board, Executive and Staff.

 

The Exec probably think that they are doing a great job & working hard for the members without appreciating that the Board is where the policy decisions should be made and the Exec/Staff are then responsible for effectively carrying out those resolutions.

 

This was all discussed at length here when Ian Baker was on the Board and it was clear at that time that the Board (and particularly newly elected Board Members) were treated as unnecessary novices by the more experienced and entrenched Executive and their clique of mates on the Board. At that time it was also reported that new Board Members were sometimes intimidated on how to vote.

 

The failure of meeting these CASA Audits should be the trigger for a complete shakeup, in my opinion, but I bet that the Board will just continue to allow themselves to be "managed" by the Executive as they have over the past couple of years and if they do they will be culpable, ...... and if the members allow this to go on again as they have in the past, then the members will get what the members deserve ...... (It could easily be argued that the present situation is also exactly that.)

 

I also suspect that the only chance that concerned ordinary members have to set things right will be Don Ramsey's recent change to the Constitution and the ability to more easily trigger an EGM. If this latest Audit stuff-up & recent groundings doesn't cause Don to be flooded with more than 100 signatures, then the membership are mostly dills.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Captain

 

I agree but in a recent post I suggested and I again reiterate that to me the first step of change is not calling the EGM rather working out what the future looks like and engineering it to happen. If we go to EGM and that EGM agrees to sanction as you would expect then what happens if you havent done the planing and engineering necessary to have an alternate ready to run. I suggest it would be from something bad to something not much better and potentially worse.

 

I'm of a view that instead of focusing repeatedly on the past, (and I well understand why people do that, because to those affected it would appear that justice has been avoided, in some cases for many years), we need to work on what happens next. If I continue the justice approach when someone goes before the criminal courts the outcomes are already engineered and in place, if found guilty then an established penal system is ready to do it's thing. If we apply an approach at the EGM and the current entire or partial team are sanctioned/ perhaps removed then what do we want to happen after that, and who is going to do it? If we dont think about and address that future we may very well make a bad situation worse.

 

So, what do people want in the future? what things do we have to fix and how, and more importantly who?

 

My personal bullet point list has the following things on them:-

 

1) Insurance, what we have isnt right and is potentially medium to long term fatal. Its a one word problem but a major body of work to fix, IMHO.

 

2) Restructure of the board/exec. Do we need geograpohically aloocated representatives.......To me that approach is as an anology to talk about the usefullness of horse and cart in an automobile era. We are all able to be connected instantaneously via the internet, CASA requires allmembers to be able to get our notams and briefings etc online so no one should be able to argure that lack of computer ability or connection should prevent us using technology as an enabler.

 

3) Given 2) do we need as many on the board as we have, It seems to me that we have so many that it is potentially easy to freeload. There is a risk that we take our anger out on those in the exec who might in reality be the only ones that are doing stuff and didnt just divorce themselves from the rest of the board by virtue of ego but rather through lack of value in the remainder...(Its only a guess not a statement of fact, I havent been involved so cant know if its true or not, but in any event this is about looking forward not backwards and addressing forward potential problems) Reminds me of that old military saying, Lead!, Follow!, or get the f&k out of my way!!!

 

4) CASA audit outcomes show us that we needed an external audit to find problems, In most large businesses we have an internal audit capability to unearth problems before you are embarrased publically...clearly we need some form of Quality assurance capability. Nothings for nothing so we will need to invest members money into something like this

 

5) Our IT capabilities both internal (operational) and externally facing are woeful and have been for years.....we need to get on top of this

 

6) And lastly there is obviously a problem with the chain of command, a CEO arguing he doesnt have responsibility for day tpo day operational team suggests that he, if not others in the office dont understanhd who provides marching orders. Where we have statutory reporting lines (teh equivalent of dual reporting in the corporate world) then there is the risk or people being pulled in oposing directions. To prevent taht duty statements and performance reviews are always done with both manager stakeholders present so that the bunny in the middle doesnt end up in a no win situation. The current circumstances show we have problems here.

 

Lastly this is a list of what is possibly wrong theres likely a much bigger list of what is right, and that needs to be validated and agreed as well I believe. Again in corporate land this is just standard Business Process Re-engineering.

 

And Im sure there are others that need to be considered, decisions made and processes or constitutional changes prepared well before the EGM is called in my opinion.

 

What do others think?

 

Andy

 

 

[ave8rr]

Captain

 

 

3) Given 2) do we need as many on the board as we have, It seems to me that we have so many that it is potentially easy to freeload. There is a risk that we take our anger out on those in the exec who might in reality be the only ones that are doing stuff and didnt just divorce themselves from the rest of the board by virtue of ego but rather through lack of value in the remainder...(Its only a guess not a statement of fact, I havent been involved so cant know if its true or not, but in any event this is about looking forward not backwards and addressing forward potential problems) Reminds me of that old military saying, Lead!, Follow!, or get the f&k out of my way!!!

 

4) CASA audit outcomes show us that we needed an external audit to find problems, In most large businesses we have an internal audit capability to unearth problems before you are embarrased publically...clearly we need some form of Quality assurance capability. Nothings for nothing so we will need to invest members money into something like this

 

5) Our IT capabilities both internal (operational) and externally facing are woeful and have been for years.....we need to get on top of this

 

6) And lastly there is obviously a problem with the chain of command, a CEO arguing he doesnt have responsibility for day tpo day operational team suggests that he, if not others in the office dont understanhd who provides marching orders. Where we have statutory reporting lines (teh equivalent of dual reporting in the corporate world) then there is the risk or people being pulled in oposing directions. To prevent taht duty statements and performance reviews are always done with both manager stakeholders present so that the bunny in the middle doesnt end up in a no win situation. The current circumstances show we have problems here.

 

What do others think?

 

Andy

Andy, agree with you on all of the above.

 

I have never been able to work out why there is not an internal audit system in an organisation of this size. I am surprised that CASA have not enforced this upon us. I am currently running a certified Aerodrome and CASA have required an SMS (Safety Management System) in place for the last two or three years.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Mike

 

Just remeber that I havent set foot in the office they may well have some or even significant internal checks and balances...but for whatever reason they didnt work, or if they did didnt end up witha changed outcome.....perhaps that was what was the agenda item for yesterdays meeting....

 

A non Conformance report that isnt actioned is more useless than haveing no independent checks, with the former you are paying for it but geting no benefit, with the later you at least arent paying for it....

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Andy maybe start a new thread so we can use this one to follow the ongoing dramas of owners trying to reregister their planes (if any)

 

 

[dodo]

Andy,

 

I think the process re-engineering is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The first thing we need is someone responsible for day to day administration, who would have picked up on administration issues, and managed these. So I suggest the board should not have an executive, but the administrator (an employe) should manage this. This _should_ have been the CEO or whatever the real constitution calls that position. The board should be direction and oversight, not executive. I think this has been most of the problem in the past.

 

Secondly, I think the insurance problem reflects the uneasy position RA-Aus has as a CASA mandated regulator, and an association of people who like little aeroplanes. CASA probably would not have been sued in the way RA-Aus has been, partly because of size and access to Commonwealth resources, and partly because as a pure regulator, it is harder to criticise, as it can claim to merely implement the instructions of the parliament (I was only following orders, mein Fuhrer!). On this issue, I think RA-Aus should talk to CASA, and see what can be done in the Deed of Arrangement. This might take years and much effort, but would be worthwhile - and this is a genuine board responsibility! Although CASA would be reluctant to go through the process of changing the Deed, they would be even more reluctant to take on the regulatory task should RA be sued into administration and liquidation.

 

Otherwise I agree with your assessment. I think if we were to put such changes to the board or the membership, it would be well to keep it very simple. Perhaps we should just push for three things:

 

• information to the membership,
   
   
  
• separation of administration and oversight/direction/policy, and
   
   
  
• some form of external review/audit.
   
   
  

 

 

 

dodo