The effect of the audit..dang!!!

[Powerin]

Where can I find the list that says what should be in an aircraft file? Is it a CASA list?

As far as I can tell it's all in the RAAus Technical manual. You can find it online here if you don't have a paper copy.

 

 

[metalman]

I was just pretty much applying what happens in the AMO audits I've been through to exlain why things may have occurred. Over the years, auditors have been getting pickier, what one auditor might have let slip last year, may not get through at all this year. My point about common sense was in the context, that it doesnt matter that your aircraft has had that propeller fitted and been operating safely for 10 years, what matters is that the document says a particular type and model is fitted and is non-compliant if it's not. I suspect that a lot of the data has been either misplaced or was never provided and was registered anyway.

I see a similar thing in the auto repair industry , if a customer finds a couple of faults ,even really minor ,they tend to look harder at the job and what was a minor issue can become a list. Maybe after a few issues( I've read the reports ) they arrived and saw no change ,looked harder, then again ,,,until !!! I can't see how anyone but RAA is to blame here,

 

 

[winsor68]

What Metalman describes is exactly what happened according to the Audit report.

 

 

[robinsm]

Am I naive. To fail an audit, or a number of audits, you have to ignore the rules already in place. If you follow the rules then you dont fail audits. Simple as that. The person who is responsible for overseeing and making sure things happen is then CEO. He is employed to to make sure things are right and the procedures in place and policies are followed. Why are we not requesting the organisation prosecute this person and request any bonuses be repaid. (obviously any performance bonuses should not have been paid as there was no performance.)

 

That being said, we are also to blame to some extent, after all the requirements are all there in the manual and Raa Aus will send tyou out a list of what ais required so you cant stuff it up.

 

The sheer incompetence shown in this whole sorry episode should be published as a lesson on how not to run an organisation.

 

I registered my aircraft about 5 years ago, I followed the procedures in the manual and ticked off the requirements as listed as they were done. No mates deals, no nods and winks, no "send it later". Just done properly and no furthur dramas.

 

Its not hard people. Just foww the rules and neither you, or the organisation should have any problems.

 

 

[Teckair]

Bilby 54 said....

 

I will withdraw my comments about previous ops managers but prove to me that they had no knowledge of the situation before they left for CASA.

 

As you will know I can not prove that and I am quite annoyed to think we trained up a couple of people to defect to a place like CASA. The reality is we probably get better treatment from these guys than we would from some people, why else was there so many repeat opportunities to sort the problems out? Maybe RAAus thought these guys were so good to deal with they did not try hard enough to comply with the audits?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Bilby 54 said....I will withdraw my comments about previous ops managers but prove to me that they had no knowledge of the situation before they left for CASA.

As you will know I can not prove that and I am quite annoyed to think we trained up a couple of people to defect to a place like CASA. The reality is we probably get better treatment from these guys than we would from some people, why else was there so many repeat opportunities to sort the problems out? Maybe RAAus thought these guys were so good to deal with they did not try hard enough to comply with the audits?

The whole Lee/Mick thing is a complete distraction.....The main deal is that we didnt do what we were supposed to do and we didnt do it for F&kn years!! Unless we "grow up" and become more mature in our dealings, establish things like internal audit, then we will continue to be suprised and in need of a lynch mob every time one of these audits goes bad......That is not sustainable, it damages a relationship with CASA (no matter who is in the job!!) and ultimately opens us up to litigation.

 

The motion that the "Detractors" put in place to revisit structure of RAAus and establish a series of standing subcomittees including risk management and internal audit (both financial and Tech/ops) will go along way towards growing up! Its just s shame it had to come from the "bad eggs" rather than the board (this one, last one it matters not!)

 

So, time to focus on the future and less on the past, with the exception that we will all be looking very closely at close out Audit #5!!!

 

Andy.

 

P.S, If I was Lee or Mick, was not being paid not very much (RAAus historically pays under the going rate, hence the significant salary adjustments of the last few years IMHO, and an opportunity came to move across to CASA with a salary increase and a degree of government stability in the city that I wanted to live in then the only difference is I may not have taken as long to make the move! That is a commercial reality in big business today, you only get step increases in responsibility and pay as you move to new roles. If you like the current company and it can provide new roles then fantastic, if not exit stage left. In Lees case just were was he going to get his next step up within RAAus????

 

 

[bilby54]

My understanding is the last audit was three years prior to the current one.

 

Obviously, you wonder what changed in those three years? The quality of the audit?

 

dodo

Interesting point if it can be verified - three years without an audit...... 3 years without any guidance from the regulator then all of a sudden, three or four audits virtually months apart. How long before the one three years previous?

 

Can anyone here clear that up?

 

 

[bilby54]

My understanding is the last audit was three years prior to the current one.

 

Obviously, you wonder what changed in those three years? The quality of the audit?

 

dodo

Interesting point if it can be verified - three years without an audit...... 3 years without any guidance from the regulator then all of a sudden, three or four audits virtually months apart. How long before the one three years previous?

 

Can anyone here clear that up?

 

 

[winsor68]

Interesting point if it can be verified - three years without an audit...... 3 years without any guidance from the regulator then all of a sudden, three or four audits virtually months apart. How long before the one three years previous?Can anyone here clear that up?

I believe that is not unusual Bilby... This is the whole crux of self-regulating. Even the Airlines are self-regulated these days.

 

The recent fiasco is not strictly three or four failed audits... rather one audit that discovered some problems, and 2 or 3 follow ups that showed no progress on fixing the problems leading to a more in-depth investigation showing the terrible mess that has finally come to light.

 

WE WERE SUPPOSED TO AUDIT OURSELVES TO PREVENT THIS.

 

 

[flyerme]

was 1 hell 0f a ride(and exspence) but its finally over,im back in action, fully reged and transferred...wahooo...

 

thanks LEANNE(thats right LEANNE at the desk) for processing it .And all on the day the reg ran out...

 

 

[djpacro]

....... That same person can approve changes.

Some-one thought that my comment was creative, whatever that means. Suggest you continue discussing it on the other thread at http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/marap.132799/page-7

 

The advice I have received from an ex-CAR35 Engineer who is extremely conversant with the CARs is:

"There can be no formal approval of a modification to an experimental aircraft, because since it does not comply with any design standard in the first place, nobody can approve the design of a modification as 'complying with any design standard in force under these Regulations'. However, an experimental certificate is issued on the basis of a risk assessment; and if the risk is altered by a modification, the aircraft may have to go back and fly off another 25 hours or whatever, in a remote area."

I will just add an opinion that approvals are neither formal nor informal - modifications are either approved or they are not.

[storchy neil]

ok suck it up princess so old rules are starting to bite your arses are they i told some off you clowns several years ago it was going to bite

 

the shxxx that was going on when my plane was damaged by me and the repair work done to it by anl2 lame

 

now in the process off photos and what was done to bring my x plane up to airworthy standard is being sent to Warren truss so stand by for more shxxx from casa raa and casa wont be able to say civil mater go away

 

warning if your plane has a 912 rotax motor does it comply to rotax installation manual no mater how old the plane is

 

neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

The normal procedure for the Minister would be to have someone take a look at the Magistrate's decision over what you've sent off Storchy.

 

That's probably not going to be in your interest.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Interesting point if it can be verified - three years without an audit...... 3 years without any guidance from the regulator then all of a sudden, three or four audits virtually months apart. How long before the one three years previous?Can anyone here clear that up?

As another poster commented, audits are never supposed to be regular, otherwise people would prepare for them every year.

 

If the first of the latest audits had come up clean, there would have been no reason for a second.

 

If the second audit had come up clean after the first warning, there would have been no reason for a third.

 

And so on.

 

There's nothing unusual about three years without an audit; it could be a lazy regulator, but more often the regulator is active enough to see there are no issues.

 

I would be more likely to look at Wide Bay as one of the little signals, and a steady group of incidents, which also saw in commentary on here, reaching a point where soneone had to do something.

 

 

[storchy neil]

The normal procedure for the Minister would be to have someone take a look at the Magistrate's decision over what you've sent off Storchy.That's probably not going to be in your interest.

typical turbo you hiding your head in sand wake up when is the next fatal going to happen through gross neg from the powers at the top two die at Shepparton witch was avoidable neil