CASA AUDITS - 2011/2012

[turboplanner]

Following my FoI request to CASA on November 30 last year, I've just received 208 documents.

 

Naturally personal details are blanked out.

 

The audit reports are dated:

 

21/12/11

 

8/5/12

 

17/8/12

 

30/11/12

 

At this stage it appears to me to be short of some critical information, so I'll need to study it in some detail.

 

 

[Markdun]

Can you post them so we can all see them? Mark

 

 

[turboplanner]

LOL, who do I send the bill to.

 

There are many hours of study and probably few laughs before anything meaningful conclusions for future use.

 

Don't expect anything for a month or two.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

You should check the RAAus website frequesntly, It was suggested that when teh FoI versions from CASA were sent to Tubz that RAAus would make the same documents available to members and the board members who despite asking have been refused access to the real thing!

 

NOw thats "he said, she said" so no guarentees of RAAUs board/exec doing anythng specific from me!

 

Andy

 

 

[webbm]

See more here:

 

2012 Financials

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . The audit reports are dated:21/12/11

8/5/12

 

17/8/12

 

30/11/12.

The above says a lot without going through all the documents in detail.

The first report was received by RAA just before Christmas 2011 And distributed to all Board Members on 6 Jan 2012

 

But, until now, the Exec have kept the follow up reports to themselves. And the members didn't know there was a problem until aircraft registrations were declined. The follow ups were well spaced through the year.

 

NO EXCUSE!!!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

This destroys the argument of a CASA witch hunt

 

 

[Gentreau]

Looks like a perfectly reasonable audit schedule.

 

First audit, Oops.

 

- 6 months to fix the issues.

 

Second audit, not good enough.

 

- 3 months to try harder.

 

Third audit, still not good enough,

 

- 3 months to show why you shouldn't be closed down.

 

Fourth audit, shut-down.

 

Amazing that an organisation with a relatively simple function (register planes, licence pilots) can't get it's house in order in a whole year.....

 

.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I feel that at the time these audits were happening, nobody in RAAus (at the top) took command, or responsibility for the ongoing audit problems. ORrrrrrrr........Somebody said "she's right, I'll take care of it all..and didn't"...that would also have to be somebody in a higher command position.

 

As responsible and safe pilots, (we were all required to do HF remember...or else) we are required to exercise correct 'command decisions' during our time in the air as PIC.

 

Why haven't they,the ones who were elected to their lofty positions, also exercised similiar 'command decisions '....Somebody has dropped the ball here bigtime, and it's come back to bite them (and us!) on the axse !.................................Maj...

 

 

[winsor68]

We have good reason to be totally pxxxed of Ross... I for one was relieved when we voted our then new North Queensland Board Rep in several years ago because the problems we have now were becoming very obvious and it was my naive belief that with his background he would be just the sort of person who would be able to cut through the BS and sort it out.

 

Well.... How wrong were we???!!!

 

 

 

 

[webbm]

I would much rather see the audits before I jump to conclusions with serious accusations (not directing this at anyone in particular). There are a lot of hypothetical scenarios ranging from incompetence of RA-Aus to incompetence of CASA.

 

I'm not suggesting either, which is why I would like to see the audits. I would like to see how clear the audits describes the problems and if they are the exact problems not fixed in the next audit. I would also like to see a written statement from CASA as to the exact reasons why certain RA-Aus privileges were suspended and see them outlined in a previous audit as clearly stated items to rectify.

 

turboplanner, I commend you for successfully seeking this information so the facts of the audit can be known to at least one general member and preferably all members, hopefully before the meeting.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[old man emu]

Turbo,

 

Without having to scan and post all the documents, are you able to list the Non-Compliances listed on the 21/12/11 audit. This will give us the things that CASA found to be wrong, and we can get an idea of what CASA considered really serious problems, and which if considered minor problems.

 

When we know this, we can judge how well the Exec acted to resolve the problems to the benefit of the Membership.

 

OME

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

[floatl][/floatl]

 

 

[turboplanner]

webbm makes a good point and OME, that makes sense.

 

After a quick scan, the raw data could hurt some innocent people without solving any problems.

 

I've consistently said one of the most urgent priorities for RAA is to get back into compliance with CASA rather than invent new corporate structures, so I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't go through the data carefully with the aim of working out what action was needed to comply. I'm working with a board member on this, and while that may be an unspectacular path, I think it will produce a result, but that may take a little time. OME, if the information in the first audit sets the scene for what concerned CASA, I'll post the key things. The documents are vintage CASA - many more words than are necessary for clear communication.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

I'm not convinced you need to wait for the sanitised audit reports to be released - after 9 th Feb? You can work out what went wrong to a degree with some simple organisation theory.

 

First audit report comes in and a quick review of the problem showed that there had been big mistakes being made in the Tech Mgrs area of responsibility for years. Action - Get a new Tech Mgr but no criticism of the CEO allowed.

 

Next audit. Surely the new Tech Mgr can't be responsible? Would not have had time to get his feet under his desk. No criticism of the CEO allowed!

 

Next audit . . . Bloody CASA moving the goal posts (yeah, sure). No criticism of the CEO allowed.

 

Fourth failure . . . Sack the Tech Mgr, no criticism of the CEO allowed. Not the CEO's fault because the Tech Mgr is responsible to the Exec. The Exec are not at fault and no need to tell the members because it is all the members fault for not sending in the right paperwork.

 

Pat the CEO on the back for a job well done as he slips out the back door as the crisis reaches a crescendo. Crisis? What crisis? We, the Board Exec, are rolling up our sleeves and fixing the problem. We are winning the battle. The piles (of the huge backlog) are, after only three months starting to go down (Really?)

 

Could this be description of a fabulously functional organisation?

 

My personal policy, when I moved on from one job to the next, was to sign a "mea culpa" with a 6 month "use by date". In other words I gave those who followed me 6 months in which they could blame me for everything that went wrong. After that they were on their own.

 

Lee Ungermann and John Gardon are not responsible for this mess. Their successors have had more than three years to find and fix the problems. This Board had the problems pointed out to them by CASA and they failed four times to take the correct management action And are not managing the fix up in our lifetimes. Wait until they have to come clean on Feb 9 and see how big the backlog really is.

 

Blaming Boards of yesteryear, when half of them were on those Boards is ludicrous. Blaming the members for poor RAA record-keeping systems is an affront to our intelligence. Keeping the members in the pitch dark until aircraft are grounded is insidious.

 

 

[Sammy]

The same President and Secretary from the first audit to the last one...irrespective of who caused the underlying problem, the same individuals kept ignoring it and not fixing it, and ignoring CASA on our behalf, not to their own detriment but to the detriment of the members...real backyarders...time to elect professional representatives in to help protect our interests, and I do think the sooner the better!

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks for doing that FOI turbo. Just why was it necessary for you to have to go to this trouble and expense I wonder, surely those CASA people are our public employees dedicated to us aviation people?

 

I'll be most interested to see if there were any real safety issues. How many people died as a result of the failures of the RAAus system? How many kindergartens were crashed into?

 

Of course, faced with the power of CASA, we and the RAAus havn't got much choice but to appease them.

 

... Bruce

 

 

[Keith Page]

re post #9

 

Good one Maj, I like it however what you left unsaid is the bit "I will fix she will be right etc. etc. and soforth and soforth" dit dit do do said.

 

Keep your feet dry 597 mm here, catch up one day.

 

regards,

 

Keith Page..

 

 

[Markdun]

I had a great fly this morning....first in my Cygnet for 9 months. Only problem was that I had to grade the strip due to feral pig damage!

 

I'm still struggling with understanding the CASA audits. From my 30 years experience in the public service the usual response to audits is either (a) ignore it as no one cares; (b) change the rules so your existing processes would become compliant; © attack the audit as raising only insig or minor issues; (d) only as a last resort change your processes to be compliant. We dont know what they tried to do, if anything. It is worth noting that the exemtion for our aircraft requires them to meet the specified criteria (eg max gross weight) AND be registered with RAa. Having RAA registration does not make an aircraft compliant. And I cant find any law that forbids the RAA from registering a non-compliant aircraft . The regs under which CASA authorizes the RAA only require that the RAA be 'suitable to ensure that the administration of operations, airworthiness assessments and procedures can be properly carried out' and have practices etc to ensure operations and airtwortiness are carried out safely, and has a CEO who has the authority and responsibilty to ensure things are done with reasonable care and diligence (see Civil Aviation Reg 262AN

 

People should be aware that if they are personally affected by the rego fiasco they are entitled to demand a statement of reasons from CASA under s.13 of the

 

 

[Markdun]

Sorry about that..hit the wrong button. It is s.13 of the federal ADJR Act.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

 

[dazza 38]

I had a great fly this morning....first in my Cygnet for 9 months. Only problem was that I had to grade the strip due t the o feral pig damage!I'm still struggling with understanding the CASA audits. From my 30 years experience in the public service the usual response to audits is either (a) ignore it as no one cares; (b) change the rules so your existing processes would become compliant; © attack the audit as raising only insig or minor issues; (d) only as a last resort change your processes to be compliant. We dont know what they tried to do, if anything. It is worth noting that the exemtion for our aircraft requires them to meet the specified criteria (eg max gross weight) AND be registered with RAa. Having RAA registration does not make an aircraft compliant. And I cant find any law that forbids the RAA from registering a non-compliant aircraft . The regs under which CASA authorizes the RAA only require that the RAA be 'suitable to ensure that the administration of operations, airworthiness assessments and procedures can be properly carried out' and have practices etc to ensure operations and airtwortiness are carried out safely, and has a CEO who has the authority and responsibilty to ensure things are done with reasonable care and diligence (see Civil Aviation Reg 262AN

 

People should be aware that if they are personally affected by the rego fiasco they are entitled to demand a statement of reasons from CASA under s.13 of the

Sorry I dont agree Mark, CASA has given more than enough slack IRT in the latest RAA audits & latest RAA problems.They have been more than fair IMO.They do want the RAA to be sucessfull as a RAAO.

 

 

[winsor68]

We should all find it alarming that Public Servants over the last 30 years have taken such a flippant attitude to their work... and more alarming that they can be so flippant about the whole thing publicly. It is public money and if this is not a very, very tongue in cheek comment then I reckon you need to go out the back and give yourself a good upper-cut to the chin on behalf of us Victim Taxpayers that you screwed over and who are now paying for your "Service". Heck...even if it is tongue in cheek it bloody stinks.

 

From my 30 years experience in the public service the usual response to audits is either (a) ignore it as no one cares; (b) change the rules so your existing processes would become compliant; © attack the audit as raising only insig or minor issues; (d) only as a last resort change your processes to be compliant.

[nomadpete]

The same President and Secretary from the first audit to the last one...irrespective of who caused the underlying problem, the same individuals kept ignoring it and not fixing it, and ignoring CASA on our behalf, not to their own detriment but to the detriment of the members...real backyarders...time to elect professional representatives in to help protect our interests, and I do think the sooner the better!

Rather than blame those who have "come and gone", might we look at the common denominators? If numerous individuals have put in their best efforts and so often left in disgust, that only leaves the "long timers" who have been there the longest. They have had the longest tenure to know what has been going on and to carry the largest part of the blame....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If the exec got the RAA into this mess, can we trust that they will get the RAA out of it or are they just going to make it worse by staying and denying any involvement in the problem?

 

For me, the answer is no. The system is broken if they stay and CASA has every right to continue suspending flying rights until the system is fixed.

 

 

[old man emu]

After a quick scan, the raw data could hurt some innocent people without solving any problems..

At this stage, I agree that naming name and apportioning blame would be counterproductive.

 

OME, if the information in the first audit sets the scene for what concerned CASA, I'll post the key things.

I was just enquiring about what CASA had flagged in its initial audit. Somethings they find can be of lesser importance than others. I would like to know what the highlighted that has resulted in RAAus not being able to renew registrations. Was it record keeping; inadequate documentation in registration applications; inadequate qualifications of Level 4s, or what?

 

Like the detective from Dragnet, I'm just after the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

 

OME