RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again

[fly_tornado]

I should mention the EAA do a great job of explaining the FAA rego process compared to the RAAs effort. I have no idea about #28 and #55 regos

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well done, facthunter!

Wrong Neville 80 ....

 

 

[ave8rr]

I should mention the EAA do a great job of explaining the FAA rego process compared to the RAAs effort. I have no idea about #28 and #55 regos

There is the first problem FT. As I said in an ealier post, there needs to be a complete overhaul of the RAAus register system. There are too many categories.

This of course has grown as RAAus has grown and rules have changed along the way. The sooner CASA Rule Part 103 Sport aviation is issued the better as I see it.

 

 

[Admin]

I would have strongly supported Facthunter Nev, if it was him but unfortunately it isn't...our Facthunter would have set them straight

 

 

[facthunter]

I think he knows that David.

 

A glance at all the categories and confusion would make one think a review of the whole thing would be necessary. LSA to me was only a stop-gap USA class that appeared to cause more problems here than it solved.The only advantage was a weight increase, and the 600 will probably rise anyhow..

 

Let's imagine we start at a new hypothetical beginning.

 

We assemble as a bunch of sport aviation enthusiasts and PLAN a set of rules that satisfy our collective aims for designs, building procedures, owner and other maintenance etc plus "Flying Training" ( that's actually a BIG call if you think about it).

 

Do you think we would have had such a low weight maximum and such a complex set of rules. Of course not. We have grown gradually "evolved" might be a better description like topsy. IF we devise a new set of rules we may lose some of the advantages we had in the past. I think we all realise that nothing is assured. Can we really live with such a complex system?

 

Our immediate job is to get back into the air, and look to our governance issues. Getting that Court matter off our backs would be a good idea too.

 

Simplified rules, should be done but not today. A big job for wise heads. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

Wrong Neville 80 ....

What a pity it's not 'our' Nev . What is needed is someone who is prepared to make the effort to "hunt facts".

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with the RAA is if you rock the boat too much you get thrown overboard. Look at the hatchet job they tried to do with Ian.

 

 

[Admin]

The problem with the RAA is if you rock the boat too much you get thrown overboard. Look at the hatchet job they tried to do with Ian.

Yes, and who was exposed for what they are really like...and what mess are we in now?...What's next????????????

 

 

[fly_tornado]

missing paperwork and a lot of "sorry mate, can't be helped"

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

To qualify as E-LSA the plane must be 51% made by the builder and 49% by the factory. Not sure if that is accepted in the RAA

FT I think that your =51% and =49% are wrong and rather its >=51% and therefore <=49%

 

 

[fly_tornado]

correct, the ATSM standard work well for alloy planes but not so good for the composite stuff. How many home builders own an autoclave and could be expected to produce components reliably?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I believe that CASA are the base cause for all these problems. They themselves failed an audit from the FAA a short time ago and they have a long history of their own internal problems. Their failure to control themselves and the amazing amount of time and money wasted on trying to rewrite the regs that are at this time still not complete has distracted them from providing a firm rein on RAAus. You don't have to look far to find what the entire aviation community think of CASA and the mess Australian Aviation is in. Their bully boy attitude has i feel overflowed into the RAAus and this along with the general apathy of RAAus members has lead to the 'old boys club' who have taken us down this path. I have no confidence in the exec management of the RAAus and until they are removed and more competent management is installed we will continue to have problems.

 

I wonder just how many RAAus members are totally unaware of the situation we are in now due to the fact that there is no information coming directly from the RAAus. We are lucky to have this forum. Without it we would really be mushrooms. If we did not have this forum then i believe that the RAAus would be totally out of control. I also have noticed on the RAus website a links page to forums and that this forum is not linked. This just goes to show the conceited attitude of the RAAus management. This attitude must change and i believe that the only way to do it is to completely dismantle the management and install qualified staff that do not have their own interests as a first priority.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[facthunter]

I could easily be corrected here, but we HAVE grown very fast. I think that was an aim of the organisation, at about the time of the name change ( AUF/RAAus.. At the time quite a few questioned that ( including me). However THINGS did have to change. CASA was clearly looking for someone to pass this stuff over to and divest itself of it. We put our hand up. Why not?

 

regarding the CASA......They are not without blame in this. Parts of the regs are still not finalised. Lots of thing were put on "hold" when the new CASA CEO arrived. Clearly he was not comfortable with what he found even saying that people with no money have no place in aviation. ( I'm paraphrasing his words but the meaning is there). If he had more background experience in this area of aviation he might have ben more in sympathy with it. Out there in the "real" world, this kind of aviation gets poor press. Some of our people set a crook example also. ( A minority, but they are the ones who get noticed).

 

I would not read much significance into Ungerman and Poole working for CASA. There is no problem with them being there (and they are not the only ones from the ranks of the RAAus) but the action needs to take place at well above where they are operating in the system.

 

CASA's purpose is defined by the act of Parliament under which they exist. It falls short of the requirements the FAA operate to. CASA is ( as it's name implies), a safety AUTHORITY.. The act could, and probably should ( with advantage) be changed but don't hold your breath.

 

The arrangement, and our relationship with CASA needs a lot of clarifying. We (the members) contribute significant capital to this organisation, ( most of it, actually) and we need to know which way is up and what the future is. "when you pay, you have a say".

 

Addendum. Please note that my contribution above was written without the benefit if having read Ozzies ( who I have a lot of respect for and he has better knowledge of the AUF early days than I do) Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Tangent:-

 

Possible software improvement:-

 

Many of the posts in this thread are long and involved and take some time to compose. Its often the case that you finally hit the post reply button you then find that others have already posted......I wish that before a post was submitted a pop up dialog would poup if one or more posts have already occured as you compose yours...Sometimes what you want to say has already been said and if you knew you would change or include a reponse to those additional posts, or perhaps not post your reply.....

 

Is this something that others would like? (or is it a sign that I simple post too much...perhaps the later....)

 

Back to the thread....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

open 2 tabs if you like

 

 

[facthunter]

This forum is probably the best for features that I ever go on. I probably don't use all of them or know how to. Andy I find out eventually , but your idea sounds fine. I can just edit if it's important enough. ( Speaking for myself) Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ian just pointed out to me that he could not find the forum links on the RAAus website. I just went back and looked for them but they have gone. Definately there on Tuesday before the site went down.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In that case we know they can change the site when they want to.

 

 

[Ausmo]

A thought.......

 

There is clearly a need for reform in RAAus. I want to offer a context in which that reform needs to occur, based on the notion of accountability. I see plenty of evidence that our Board has struggled to understand what this means for them. Hopefully recent and perhaps coming events might stimulate a steep learning curve in this regard.

 

I feel qualified to do this having worked as a CEO in both Government and non-Government organisations for over 30 years, mostly employed by and accountable to Boards of Directors. I have also been a member of Boards of Directors, including Chairing two of them.

 

The accountability of a Board of Directors is to the owners of the organisation, who are the shareholders in the corporate world or in our case, us - the members of our association. The job of the Board can simply be described as 'to see to it that the organisation produces what it should for its owners.' Were that happening in RAAus, and we the members could see that was happening, all would be sweet. The problem is that we can't see that the organisation is producing what it should, mainly because they are not communicating their achievements, and problems to the membership in an open and transparent way. This failure coupled with clear evidence of instances when the organisation has failed to act appropriately on a range of issues results in the frustration, anger and resentment expressed by so many of us. Folks it doesn't have to be that way. What we need is for the Board to step up the accountability plate and start focussing on seeing to it that the organisation produces what it should, for our sake.

 

You will have gathered that in my view, the nature of RAAus demands that we have a Board of Directors as opposed to a Board of Management. A board that involves itself in management is OK for the local footy club or the Lions club, it needs to be that way. We need a Board that can see the big picture, think strategically, understand what it is the organisation needs to do and where it needs to go. It doesn't need to be fettered with the responsibility of managing the organisation as well, a task for which some board members may not be competent. In our case management best left to specialist and professional managers.The board needs to set the direction, delegate the task of management to the managers and make damn sure they are doing their job. I once heard a speech by a distinguished Chairman of a number of high profile national boards. He said, 'The most important job a board will ever do is to hire a CEO, and get rid of him if he isn't doing his job'. Failure to manage competently, or to tolerate mediocrity in management at any level should be abhorrent. If an organisation has a clear distinction between the role those who govern and those who manage, and the governors truly hold the managers accountable for the management, the organisation must be on the road to success.

 

I am certain there are plenty of our members with the vision and the capability to think strategically and drive this organisation down the right path. There are no doubt some among the current board. Perhaps removing from them the obligation to manage and instead obliging them to be accountable for what the organisation is doing, and holding the managers accountable might set us on a better road and deliver what we the members are entitled to expect.

 

Sorry to be preaching folks, but I really believe this is the way forward.

 

By they way, holding only a couple of board meetings a year is laughable, how on earth can the board know what's happening and be accountable if it is only meeting with its CEO twice a year - give me a break!

 

Erik

 

 

[Admin]

Regarding the links there can only be 2 reasons why this site, the biggest and most popular RAAus member forum site in the world, has been left out which could be either:

 

1. More corruption by the RAAus board reps and them trying to penalise you people, the members, for having an outlet to say how you feel in an unbiased environment, or

 

2. The person creating the site left it off when they created the page and only included sites that they wanted you to go to for some ulterior motive, or were told only what links to include...

 

Who knows but either way, the RAAus site content should have been vetted and again seems it was mismanaged in a very non-professional manner...how childish, and we trust our lives to these people...huh!

 

 

[Admin]

By they way, holding only a couple of board meetings a year is laughable, how on earth can the board know what's happening and be accountable if it is only meeting with its CEO twice a year - give me a break!

I tried to bring in KPI's (remember that Carol?)...got laughed at, I tried to bring in monthly financial reports (organisation health status)...got laughed at, I tried to bring in better Strategic Planning...got laughed at

The absolute biggest insult to every single one of us members that they did to us, most of who are still on the board, is at the end of one board meeting I raised about the newly released Risk Analysis that CASA had done on RAAus. It didn't even get discussed because the board was in too much of a hurry at the end of the board meeting to close the meeting and go and have a Barby at Dick Smith's Place...I sat there at the end of the board meeting shaking my head in utter disgust and disbelief...not only should CASA's RAAus Risk Analysis have been discussed but it should have been one of the very first agenda items...Lee Ungarmann saw me sitting there shaking my head and he knew, he could see my frustration with these bloody amateurs...but hey, let's just all let them keep getting away with it so we end up like we just have...a CASA Risk Analysis on RAAus of all things is overridden by a barbecue

 

 

[David Isaac]

Erik,

 

Thank you. Very eloquently put.

 

We as members need to move in this direction.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

If you don't hold us accountable, we will not hold accountable those down the line.

Would subjecting the board to disciplinary measures be accountable enough?

 

From what I can tell the following has happened:

 

1. The board "has breached (a) Recreational Aviation Australia Operations/Technical Manual requirement, or Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Com) section, or Civil Aviation Regulation, or By-Law of the Association as may be amended from time to time.

 

2. The board "has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Association".

 

The words in quotes are taken directly from the constitution and by Law (Associations Incorporation Act 1991 to be precise) each of the board members is bound to comply with the rules of the association. Thus, it seems that to be held truly accountable some sort of disciplinary action should be taken. Anything less would simply be displaying the same apathy that led us to this point in the first place...

 

 

[David Isaac]

Additionally in absolute terms the board has failed to produce the financial reports and AGM minutes in direct contravention of the rules of association. How much more will we tolerate.

 

 

[Admin]

Additionally in absolute terms the board has failed to produce the financial reports and AGM minutes in direct contravention of the rules of association. How much more will we tolerate.

Get the details David on calling for a special meeting NOW so we can send to who ever our ok to be put on the member list who are calling for the meeting...we need 100 now don't we?...just a thought, has the constitution been updated, submitted and approved yet so we can do it or is that also not done?