Some details about the audit failures.

[Captain]

Does anybody here know any firm details about the following?

 

1 In approximately what month and year was the RAAus advised that they had failed:

 

- Audit 1

 

- Audit 2

 

- Audit 3

 

2.In approximately what month and year were all board members advised that the RAAus had failed:

 

- Audit 1

 

- Audit 2

 

- Audit 3

 

3. If the whole board was advised of the failures, what action did the board take about:

 

- The failing of audit 1

 

- The failing of audit 2

 

- The failing of audit 3

 

4. Where can RAA members find all of the Board Minutes associated with all of the above?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good move Captain, this is the subject that poses the biggest threat to members - far more important than designing new structures.

 

This is something for Gavin Thobaven and Jim Tatlock to get their teeth into and publish in order to take away some of the pressure on the board.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Perhaps we could go back through the last 12-18 months of "Sport Pilot" perhaps there are details in the presidents report, and / or the techmans rumblings after all thats the only formal communications medium to the members isnt it? (except the AGM where there was some info provided....its probably in the AGM minutes....)

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

Perhaps we could go back through the last 12-18 months of "Sport Pilot" perhaps there are details in the presidents report, and / or the techmans rumblings after all thats the only formal communications medium to the members isnt it? (except the AGM where there was some info provided....its probably in the AGM minutes....)Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

Is there any chance that you or one of the other forum members could have a quick squizz thru the magazines, as I don't have mine with me at the moment?

 

I understand that the 1st Audit failure occured about 12 months ago, possibly November 2011.

 

If we can nail the dates of the audit failures we will need to rely on one of the communicative Board Members letting us know when the Board were formally advised about each, but I am worried that we might have trouble with that if they are perhaps gunshy about advising such data based on what some previous board members copped after advising us on some issues.

 

I guess that a supplementary question is whether there has been a TOP SECRET edict about Audit Failures and the members are not to be informed. I personally don't see that these issues need to be considered "In Camera" by the Board, or am I missing something on that?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I would love to read the board's discussion about these dealings. I would reckon it would be a cracker of a read. None of the board member's that have posted on the forum seem to take any sort of responsibility for the failures. So maybe they have absolved themselves of blame by firing the tech manager/s.

 

 

[Guest Lofty1]

His name is Jim Tatlock not Tatlow. Being your local representative he should be the one you are talking to about this along with Rod Birrell. Rumour-mongering on an Internet forum can often be counter-productive.

 

Lofty.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Agree Lofty, the RAA board are going to try and bury any attempt to reveal the truth. We should put in a FOI application in with CASA and get the official information. Anyone got some time to spare?

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

His name is Jim Tatlock not Tatlow. Being your local representative he should be the one you are talking to about this along with Rod Birrell. Rumour-mongering on an Internet forum can often be counter-productive.Lofty.

I am fairly independant in all this as I am not a member of RAA. I don't see anything that could be classed as rumour mongering in Captains post, just clear concise questions!

I would be very dissapointed if an organisation cannot stand up to that level of scrutiny, be it on the internet or any other forum.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ok so Ive dug through the mags I have (Not all of them) cause I dont have room in the current dwelling for mags....

 

So perhaps others could fill in the blanks:-

 

Jun 2011

 

 

 

Jul 2011

 

 

 

Aug 2011

 

 

 

Sep 2011

 

 

 

Oct 2011

 

 

 

Nov 2011 Pres report...Nothing Nothing elsewhere

 

 

 

Dec 2011

 

 

 

Jan 2012

 

 

 

Feb 2012

 

 

 

Mar 2012

 

 

 

Apr 2012 Pres report...Nothing, and nothing anywhere else

 

 

 

May 2012 Pres report...Nothing (Adam Finn Starts April 16) Nothing else.

 

 

 

Jun 2012 Pres report...4 column inches, actually mentions CASA audit but failure is not mentioned, all Ok is the inference.Does talk about internal audit "Rolling Audit" to prevent reoccurence.

 

 

 

Jul 2012 Pres Report.....3 column inches, but inference issues are all solved. Mentions that it was mentioned in Jun2012 mag, Tech Talk about 3 inches, but same message as Pres

 

 

 

Aug 2012

 

 

 

Sep 2012

 

 

 

Oct 2012

 

 

 

Nov 2012 Pres report...Nothing. An article re AGM 4 paragphs (1/3 poage columns) no detail. Tech Talk. Nothing

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

FT, given that no details of the Audits have been given to members, and I have not received a response from John McCormick for CASA documents after allowing approximately two weeks, I have just put in a Freedom of Information request to CASA for all documents relating to the four failed Audits.

 

 

[dodo]

Too stinking hot to try to find and organise the mags, but this is what I found to hand

 

October 2012

 

Pres report: Second paragraph on p7 (verbatim and complete) : "The original CASA audit took place in November 2011 and two follow up audits in April and July. At the end of the last follow up audit there were a number of comments made by CASA, the main one being "While RA-Aus has developed a number of new procedural forms and processes to facilitate aircraft registrations, there remain several outstanding issues to be addressed to finalise the November, 2011 audit." CASA has also recommended a follow up audit at the end of October. This can partly be attributed to a number of factors: the absence of a Tech manager for a period of time and the reluctance of some manufacturers to work with us to resolve these issues. Following a discussion with the full board and CEO, my intention is to get the issues resolved as soon as possible. This may include a face to face meeting with the manufacturers involved.

 

Tech talk: p27, (condensed and summarised by me). Adam refers to a number of registration issues (amateur built a/c built overseas can't be registered as amateur built if sold ready made. Neither can factory built be re-registered as amateur built. SLSA aircraft require a special cert or airworthiness. No mention of audit,but this is almost certainly connected.

 

September 2012

 

Pres report: Seventh para on p7 (verbatim and complete): I have reported a number of times about problems we have had with aircraft registrations and some documentation in our files. Unfortunately, some of the problems continue, which is very frustrating for some aircraft manufacturers and owners. However, I can say we are doing all we can to resolve these issues in as short a time as possible."

 

Tech talk: n/a (it was all about flutter)

 

August 2012:

 

nothing in either pres or tech columns re registrations or audits.

 

EDIT - I have just found the other mags. Will read and report in a few minutes. Too stinking hot here.

 

EDIT2: errors in my transcription. these are in bold

 

 

[dodo]

Jan 2012: note this issue would be the first after the initial CASA audit

 

Pres report: p7, (summarised and condensed): (Quote) "The audit went well in all areas except LSA aircraft" (rough summary) followed by a discussion of missing documentation, contacting owners, corrective action taken systems and procedures updated. There is a strong implication that all was corrected and all is now OK, but that this was timely reminder to everyone to get it right in future. At that stage RA-Aus had not received the written report, but were working from the audit exit interview of 27 November.

 

Tech report: p47 Steve Bel devote a couple of pages to explaining the various registrations, LSA, E-LSA, C of As, how to register, transfer from GA/HGFA etc.

 

Feb 2012:

 

Pres report, p7: (verbatim and complete): "The final report from the CASA audit has been received and there were no surprises , with the concerns having already been identified at the exit brief. Most of the corrective actions have been completed and we are currently working through our systems and procedures to identify where improvements can be made. The CASA audit team will be revisiting in the near future to provide further guidance where required. The report was not all negative and there were some very positive comments received.

 

Tech :nothing

 

March 2012:

 

Pres p7: nothing

 

Tech - they doesn't appear to be a tech talk column in that issue.

 

 

[Captain]

Thanks for chasing that out Doey ... and Andy,

 

If you think it is hot there, you should come out west.

 

So based on what you have reported from those reviews, it sounds like RAA didn't really "fail" the 1st Audit.

 

Should we still be saying that we "failed"? Does any member know any more?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[dodo]

My experience is with performance and financial audits, (none to do with aviation, but I think it applies regardless):

 

There isn't a pass" or "fail", (except with financial statements, where they are accepted, qualified, adverse,etc. This doesn't apply outside financial statements.) With a performance audit, you just get a list of audit recommendations.

 

So you really just read through the audit comments and recommendations, and the import of these can be a bit subjective. They are also usually very constrained, and in a semi-legalistic format, recording purely observations (hypothetical example - "in a number of cases, it was found that staff had authorised expenditure outside the framework of Regulation 45(a)3(b)2". This could mean f-all, or could allude to cases of fraud. You need to know your regulatory framework, and read between the lines)

 

My feeling is that either the board was a bit naive, and didn't read carefully, or possibly that the follow up audits became more intrusive and started finding more. Either way, the audit recommendation quoted in the October magazine would have made me very nervous - the reference to more being required to address a year old audit. I think the whoever was responsible may not have any experience being audited, and didn't realise that you are supposed to address the issues before the first follow up audit, not after three follow ups!

 

However, I read the magazine,and I never picked up that this was an ongoing saga. I must have just glossed over that bit. I wonder if the board was a bit the same, although you would hope they were a bit better informed and closed to events than I am. The audit exit interviews should have informed them,as these are verbal, and can be a bit more candid.

 

dodo

 

 

[dazza 38]

Pass and fail are soooo eighties.

 

It is now competent or not yet competent

 

err I guess we are not yet competent.

 

 

[Captain]

Or incompetent .............................. but not yet incontinent?

 

 

[pudestcon]

Or incompetent .............................. but not yet incontinent?

I dunno - there seems to be leaks everywhere, or is that haemorraging.

Pud

 

 

[old man emu]

Dodo is quite correct. When someone audits an organisation, they compare what the organisation said it was going to do with what it has actually done. If it did do what it said it would do, the auditor reports a compliance. If the organisation didn't do what it said it would do, that's reported as a non-compliance.

 

A non-compliance can be "major" or "minor". A major non-compliance could be, for example, a complete failure to follow a legal requirement. A minor non-compliance could be a failure to carry out a review of a procedure within a stated time period.

 

What you got to realise is that an auditor comes into an organisation and first of all looks at what the organisation says it is going to do, usually in its written policy or procedures manual. Then the auditor goes around asking questions and looking at records to see if things are being done as they should be. At the end of the audit, the auditor produces a report that basically says, "Hey! You said you were going to do things this way, but you haven't. You should take some corrective action and have a look again after a reasonable time to see if things have improved."

 

The role of the auditor is to encourage management to Plan; Implement; Review, and Refine. This process is aimed at continual improvement of operations.

 

In my opinion, if the RAAus is continually failing to reach a suitable standard of compliance with the CASA requirements, then there has been a failure of management to Review the activities of its administrative staff, and to take steps to ensure the application of correct procedures. If that is so, perhaps it is not the Members of the Board who have failed, but the CEO.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[dazza 38]

I would hate to be competent in being incontenent. That could be very messy.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Until you learn how to "cover up"

 

 

[pylon500]

I understand that the 1st Audit failure occured about 12 months ago, possibly November 2011.

That's an interesting date, if it ties in with an event in October 2011, then that is actually fairly quick action by CASA.

 

I never picked up that this was an ongoing saga. I must have just glossed over that bit

I think maybe the magazine glossed it over for you....?

 

"The audit went well in all areas except LSA aircraft"

Tech report: p47 Steve Bel devote a couple of pages to explaining the various registrations, LSA, E-LSA, C of As, how to register, transfer from GA/HGFA etc.

I'm sure there's some clues here...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........In my opinion, if the RAAus is continually failing to reach a suitable standard of compliance with the CASA requirements, then there has been a failure of management to Review the activities of its administrative staff, and to take steps to ensure the application of correct procedures. If that is so, perhaps it is not the Members of the Board who have failed, but the CEO.Old Man Emu

Who selects the CEO?

 

Who oversees teh CEO?

 

Who counsels the CEO when performance is suboptimal?

 

Where does the buck Stop?

 

Its not the CEO!

 

P.S, dont get me wrong, the CEO moving on is probably a step in the right direction but was it soley his poor performance or the board sinability to direct, audit and review hopefully before the pressure cooker blew up!

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest airsick]

..thats what the CEO is expected to do Andy..

Did anyone tell him that? Did anyone check he was doing it and hold him accountable? Ultimately it comes back to the board. They appointed him, they should check on him. Pretty bad system to simply employ someone and then just walk away...

 

 

[dazza 38]

In modern times most jobs have a scope of works. (i dont have one in my current job). But generaly employee's should have a scope of works were they know what their job description is.Especially in high paid jobs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Companies are notorious for not administering these job specifications, and some employees are notorious for creatively "adjusting" the intent of the specification to suit their preferred lifestyle. For example managers who "need" to buy boats to "entertain" clients, the scotch cabinet in the boardroom, overseas "study" trips, "secretaries" (sorry, "PA's"), football memberships to "network" with clients and so on. In most cases the real clients have never heard of them, and the business sags under the financial weight.

 

The supervision is always required, and the best supervisors are usually the owners.