RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again

[drifterdriver]

Got the numbers up to overturn the confidentially rubbish that unfortunately reappeared but towards the end it was hard to do anything worthwhile when the vote seemed to be regularly 7-3 and you're one of the three. Once Don left it was harder and that's why I withdrew my "tendered" resignation in May.

 

Nick

 

 

[fly_tornado]

imagine the mess the RAA would have been in if that had gotten through! no really imagine it!!

 

 

[winsor68]

Got the numbers up to overturn the confidentially rubbish that unfortunately reappeared

We wouldn't have known about it.... WAIT!!! Most members still don't. And in my experience your Board Member just denies it's existence???!!!

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Christmas Wish List

 

The Junior Members were "mistakenly" grounded on the final working day before Christmas last year, so how can that be bettered this time around, hmmm....

 

(A parent of one of my students called it the "Ebenezer Scrooge Manuoevre")

 

 

[David Isaac]

No they weren't Nick, they were deliberately grounded by the CEO in defiance of a Board directive and the CEO was NOT held accountable for his actions. After all grounding the junior pilots was far more important than dealing with the failed CASA audits that none of us knew about ... Right????

 

 

[Air Escape]

HEARD ALL RAA PLANES WILL BE GROUNDED IN 3 DAYSThis is a rumour I have heard anyone know about it or if there is any truth to it

I'm sure it's just a rumor. However I can't help wondering why C.A.S.A. is giving the R.A.Aus such a hard time. Especially through ex. R.A.Aus employees. Can't they see that they're having a disruptive and destructive influence on our organisation! My questions are, What's their angle? Why be seemingly so authoritarian? Why expect more than is achievable with the resources available? Is it to,

1. Get the R.A.Aus to get their act together? or

 

2. Deliberately destabilize the R.A.Aus as a prelude to something more sinister. (eg. Shut down or takover) or.

 

3. Make room for a pre groomed C.A.S.A. expat. who will steer the R.A. Aus in a more general aviation direction. (more than we are already!) or,

 

4. Is it just some sort of perverse game of "I've got the stick and watch me use it" (Payback? who knows?)

 

It's obvious the R.A.Aus has more of a workload than it's capable of handling. Probably due to the plethora of rules, regulation, conditions, provisos, sub parragraphs, clauses, references, C.A.O's, A.N.O's, C.A.R.'s, C.A.S.R's and all other beurocratic nonsense that is mercilessly dumped on us recreational flyers with scant regard to the level of our ability to adhere to or much less understand.

 

It's also obvious that, with reference to the preceeding parragraph, that the technical managers job is one for at least a half a dozen employees.

 

Why didn't the R.A.Aus simply ask for more money, people, or resouses, or just say, "you do it" to C.A.S.A. Why has it just imploded with people being sacked, resigning, getting stressed, taking short cuts to get through over-the-top work loads?

 

For a recreational aviation organisation it's getting too damn complicated. We've either got to tone it down. Form a new simple organisation, Let C.A.S.A. do it, or take the R.A.Aus to the next level which would be tantamount to being, "The Civil Aviation Recreational Safety Authority Dept".

 

I wonder what will happen now!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

or could it be that the raa keep failing audits?

 

 

[David Isaac]

.... Why be seemingly so authoritarian? ...

Good comments Air Escape ... Perhaps it is as simple as "because they can ... "

 

 

[Air Escape]

or could it be that the raa keep failing audits?

Well said.

Yes, it could simply be that. But are we so financially constrained that we, (the R.A.Aus) haven't got the sense to address the issue of audits comprehensively? In other words, why weren't more people engaged to bring a system, and positive result in place? It's my understanding that we're now employing "temps". (consultants) to do the tech job. I'm assuming it's a plural figure here, as our "guy" couldn't do it on his own. Or is it that the consultants are just better at the job and therefore commanding a higher bottom line?

 

Do we still have a C.E.O. ?

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Well said.Yes, it could simply be that. But are we so financially constrained that we, (the R.A.Aus) haven't got the sense to address the issue of audits comprehensively? In other words, why weren't more people engaged to bring a system, and positive result in place? It's my understanding that we're now employing "temps". (consultants) to do the tech job. I'm assuming it's a plural figure here, as our "guy" couldn't do it on his own. Or is it that the consultants are just better at the job and therefore commanding a higher bottom line?

Do we still have a C.E.O. ?

I think the members were led to believe that this was all under control. Under a shroud of secrecy and no communication what else were we to think? And people were engaged to put a system in place and ensure it worked. It's what was meant to be done over the last twelve months (or what ever period the first three audits were conducted over). Unfortunately the CEO and the board at the time had better things to do and neglected to carry out these tasks much to the detriment of those amongst us that can't fly their aircraft now.

 

And do we have a CEO? Nope. But rest assured that this too is under control. The board saw fit to place an ad on 30 November to get a new CEO in place. Oh wait, my mistake, they're now calling it a General Manager position. I contacted the office today to see if I could get a copy of the position description but it hasn't been drafted yet. So despite advertising the position some 12 days ago and having applications close by 11 January (meaning the search process is taking place over the Christmas holidays) there is still no guidance as to what sort of person and skills are required for this role. All that aside, I am be sure our board will get a good result from this campaign and find the right person for the job...

 

So, who is coming to the general meeting in February?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Why would CASA not shut down RAA on the first audit failure? Why didn't the board sack the CEO after the RAA failed the audit the 2nd time? Why didn't the president resign after staff where instructed to lie to members about why registrations where delayed? There's the real smoking gun for you...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Well said.Yes, it could simply be that. But are we so financially constrained that we, (the R.A.Aus) haven't got the sense to address the issue of audits comprehensively? In other words, why weren't more people engaged to bring a system, and positive result in place? It's my understanding that we're now employing "temps". (consultants) to do the tech job. I'm assuming it's a plural figure here, as our "guy" couldn't do it on his own. Or is it that the consultants are just better at the job and therefore commanding a higher bottom line?

Do we still have a C.E.O. ?

Sorry Air Escape but I think the "we are financially constrained" is a fiction that the current leaders would prefer that we believed. The truth, as discussed at the AGM is that if RAA was to have no income at all for an entire year, we could keep going without issue as we draw down on resereves.

 

As such "finanical consraint" is always true, Im sure Bill Gates is financially constrained as well, but it may well be a different constraint to the one you and I face!

 

My view is that money needed to be spent at around audit failure number 1 if it had been spent and appropriate experts were recruited and involved then the series of failures that led to members being unable to fly could have been avoided. We are not at all constrained except in the thinking othose in charge at present! Im not advocating spend like youve never spent before, but equally what is teh use of having $m of reserves but members being unable to fly!!!! MAJOR Fail in my view!!

 

Andy

 

P.S A group Im involved with has discussed the often spoken about" CASA wants to take us over" thing with Lee Ungerman and nothing could be further from the truth. At present CASA pay RAAus a pitance each year and transfer responsibility for an entire segment of aviation to someone else so they can focus on managing the big risks. CASA wants RAA to succeed, but they must do it properly not by taking shortcuts!

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Well said.Yes, it could simply be that. But are we so financially constrained that we, (the R.A.Aus) haven't got the sense to address the issue of audits comprehensively? In other words, why weren't more people engaged to bring a system, and positive result in place? It's my understanding that we're now employing "temps". (consultants) to do the tech job. I'm assuming it's a plural figure here, as our "guy" couldn't do it on his own. Or is it that the consultants are just better at the job and therefore commanding a higher bottom line?

Do we still have a C.E.O. ?

I suggested obtaining external assistance when the first audit problem occured twelve months ago but the majority felt it wasn't required. I wonder what made the majority think it was required now? As far as the CEO is concerned I think he's on the full time payroll until the end of the Christmas shut down period. Not sure what will happen if they don't stop for the break.

 

Nick

 

 

[turboplanner]

I suggested obtaining external assistance when the first audit problem occured twelve months ago but the majority felt it wasn't required.

Please stop me if I seem illogical, but doesn't that tell you something about the current incumbents.

 

 

[Tiger]

Did not realise there was another news item section on the RAA website. Shows how they discuise it, but them claim it is open and accountable. Great of the board, hide it so we cannot find it easily, I would basically call that a deceitful presentation.

 

Your comment that board members contacted you Captain shows that they want the presidents resignation to go away. We are still waiting for the announcement of the by election for North Qld. If the Board had did the correct thing in the first place we would not be in this Constitutional crisis situation we are in now.

 

They were emphatic they were closing during the Christmas. Sounds like the heat is getting at them and they are once again doing a turn coat. How many more crisis to crisis management decisions will be made before RAA sinks.

 

The CASA audit report is "Board in Confidence". Just another secret issue from the board, must not let the members know. Well I tell you, the word is all out there now and all the threads, questions, answers are filling in the gaps for us fast. Shows us once more that the Board cannot govern or manage anything, even that thing that used to be out the back of your houses.

 

 

[Air Escape]

Thanks people. (not gender sure!) A couple of interesting things have come out of this short but informative exchange of posts.

 

Firstly, the issue of appointing a C.E.O. / G.M. From what I'm reading, the whole approach to this next appointment of the most important position in the organisation seems, let's say, flawed. After that let's call it rushed, then lose, then dare I say it suspiciously nepotistic?

 

It reminds me of the time the "survey" regarding the establishment of an airfield in Canberra was circulated. The only problem was that the survey ended about 2 days after everyone finally received their polling form. The net result was described as "nil significant interest to warrant further investigation and expense". Apparently this was the desired outcome by "they" .

 

It could also be called gross stupidity and negligence. It depends on where one stands. This exercise was action ed by the management of the R.A.Aus and implemented by an independent survey company. The aim was to attain an accurate overview of interest in the prospect of establishing a general and sport aviation airfield in Canberra. Never before had I seen such a perfect opportunity of exposing the enormous need for such a venue brought to bear. Upon realization of the need of said airfield, the proof would be taken to the appropriate governing organisations for action. Or so I thought. What I witnessed was utterly infuriating and a tragic example of gross incompetence.

 

We need to be very careful of how and whom we engage for the (apparent) vacant position of C.E.O./G.M. of the R.A.Aus.

 

The next (and last) issue which seems to be begging to be addressed is the issue of the R.A.Aus spending money so members can continue flying. Before I get too involved waxing lyrical over this topic, it's a "no brainer". Management, again, either have their priorities arse about face, or they have no idea what's going on in their realm of responsibilities. What's the good of the Big Ben Pie company if the store forgets to order flour? Is it me? Please tell me it is, and that I'm missing something.

 

 

[icebob]

Hi All,

 

I do not usually jump in but I am this time with a bit of history.

 

When I first joined RAA in 1998 I was in the position to offer the then Technical Manager for him to be qualified to certificate 4 in Quality Management to be the RAA Quality Manager and two other staff(full time) qualified to certificate 3 as internal quality auditors AND do initial quality audits and write a quality policy manual with the aim of getting RAA qualified and certified to AS9000 - ALL FREE OF CHARGE TO RAA.

 

So what happened, all I got was a stoney silence - I wonder why. For me that was a really great intoduction to RAA, so I just in the end after a lot of sillyness and a trip to the ACT to do my busness face to face, got my qualifications and buggered off back to GA and did not bother to re-new last year, I must of known something, maybe?

 

Bob.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

those with a suspicious mind have suggested that the reason the GM was delayed until Feb 9th was so that the CEO/GM role would be filled. Our recruitment process (and thats calling a spade an "earth moving machine" ) is fundamentally flawed. I can think of no significant role that has lasted when we wanted them to last and have left when we wanted them to leave.......

 

Now, on the basis of so much success we would seem to have "Rinse and repeat". Im sure we'll al be amazed and a little discouraged if we find that having done the same we will get the same.....

 

Yet another example where we will be watching our pennys so hard we dont see the dollars marching off the board.......

 

<sigh!>

 

Andy

 

 

[drifterdriver]

On the subject of the staff selection process, I'd like to ask everyone the following question and you're not allowed to Google it.

 

"When was the Chicago Convention held and what does it mean to you?"

 

(Hint - it has something to do with flying).

 

 

[Air Escape]

I've resisted the temptation. So I continue to have no idea! Chicago? It's in America, right?

 

 

[drifterdriver]

I've resisted the temptation. So I continue to have no idea! Chicago? It's in America, right?

You've just lost two marks from the interview panel if you're after an ops position but thanks for not cheating.

 

 

[Air Escape]

Thank mate. I'm laughing. I'll have to look now!

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

:im stupid:I'll have to say that I have no Idea what an American city has to do with flying in Aus under a Recreational certificate, so I'm going to google it too to check it out.

 

 

[boingk]

Thats what brought about modern air law after World War II isn't it?

 

If its what I'm thinking of (think its actually called the Convention for International Aviation or similar) then it established the International Civial Aviation Organisation, or ICAO. Its been revised several times, most recently in 2006.

 

If I'm right then big thanks to my PPL and CPL studies!

 

- boingk

 

 

[Gentreau]

I recall seeing the Chicago convention referred to in the clauses defining the obligations and liabilities of commercial air operators so I have to assume that it's the overriding agreement which establishes the terms of reference for international air transport. Now I'm off to Wikipedia it.