CASA AUDITS - 2011/2012

[shu77]

I struggle with the repeated failure of these audits, as a professional I am required to maintain compliance with SOX and ISO27001. Both are odious and add a significant overhead to my time but are achievable with minor changes to our process. If we look at the outcomes of this process it has resulted in 2 or 3 additional pieces of information being supplied and an adequate record keeping regime being put in place.

 

If we read the stories about people having to resupply pictures repeatedly it seems that there was not an adequate process for this in the past. What has been asked for here is not specifically difficult it can be achieved with a filing cabinet and some manilla folders and a summary sheet, or heaven forbid a MFD with scanner and some hard drive space. I am not interested in seeing a witch hunt come Feb 9th but I do believe that the failure to pass this audit in itself is worthy of a proper review by the membership.

 

 

[Markdun]

I am by no means suggesting the RAA management and executive are not at fault in failing to satisfy the CASA audit findings, but I am now beginning to worry that we could end up with an outcome that requires more onerous obligations on flying members, for example in having to prove or document everything to the RAA to have an aircraft registered or a pilot's certificate renewed. If this is what CASA wants we should push back. Having to provide pictures of aircraft registration to 'prove' you have the proper markings is a good case in point. It adds nothing to safety, and little if any to compliance as such markings can fall-off or change in subsequent years, or be changed deliberately if someone really wants to. In my view it should be sufficient to have the rule on markings and leave it to members to comply or risk a fine. Similarly the Operations Manual says a valid pilot certificate requires a BFR and for that to be noted in your log book. But the RAA now expects you to 'prove' that by sending them documentation. Unnecessary in my view. On the aircraft markings -- if that is the issue with CASA audits (and I think there must be more than that though) -- then in my view that is a good example where the rules in the Operating Manual should be changed to not require it. I am yet to see a HGFA aircraft with such large rego markings.

 

And Winsor68, I was the sort of public servant who blew the whistle on property developers being given land at millions of dollars discount contrary to law, and who cut off funding to some groups for not spending public money properly, who called in the AFP on people (local government QANGOS) seeking to get a Dept to release funds to them by telling porkies), and having an auditor struck-off for failing to identify that a $900,000 payment for a $1.4m project funded by you, me and the rest of Australia, was not paid. I am cynical, but sometimes auditors get it wrong, but more importantly they rarely look into the policy or the wisdom of the rule or process -- they just answer the question -- do the practices comply with the rule?

 

Can anyone tell me whether anyone has tried to see the audits, and/or the Deed of Agreement with CASA under Rule 36 of the RAA Constitution? I can't understand how the Exec can prevent any Member, let alone a Board member from seeing any document that is in the possession of the RAA under this rule. Or is it just ignored?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.......Can anyone tell me whether anyone has tried to see the audits, and/or the Deed of Agreement with CASA under Rule 36 of the RAA Constitution? I can't understand how the Exec can prevent any Member, let alone a Board member from seeing any document that is in the possession of the RAA under this rule. Or is it just ignored?

Mark

 

There are 2 factions in the board, the exec and their side and the other. Board members from the other side have asked to see those, and other documents for quite some time and were either ignored or told no!

 

Right up until last week when suddenly the documents were posted onto the board forum, Im told. Pressumably becuase of pressure of the upcoming meeting and/or the fact that they were in direct contravention of CASA's instructions and someone pointed that out to them(again) and CASA directly!

 

There are still issues that the board is dealing with where the documentation that relates to events before the board members time, that are being witheld from that board member and no doubt we will discuss on Saturday those things, among other.

 

Ring Jim Tatlock and or John McKeown (Mobile numbers in the front of Sports Pilot) and discuss it directly with them, better you get it first hand than 3rd hand through me!

 

Andy

 

 

[Tiger]

The rules are ignored by the Executive as demonstrated by board members staing on this forum that they are excluded from information they require to carry out the duties as a responsible baord member.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I thought it was a good letter that Paul Middleton wrote which I got yesterday.

 

While he did not mention Steve Bell's name, it was clear that Steve Bell was the person referred to and that he was guilty of using his own judgement and sense, and interpreting regulations as he saw fit, to help get members flying.

 

In doing this he appears to have given ammunition to an ex-RAAus person who is now working for CASA.

 

I agree with Markdun that the outcome of all this could be a much more nasty and officious process.

 

CASA must be highly overstaffed to have the resources to do this kind of nitpicking. I'd tell my local polly this but I'm scared that the outcome might be "cost recovery" against us.

 

...Bruce

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Mark, are you still in Canberra? Going to the Meeting on Saturday?

 

Are you able to persuade as many as possible in Canberra to come on Saturday? We need to get the maximum attendance to show the Board that this is not all a big beat-up by a handful of malcontents with time on their hands and nothing better to do with it than grumble.

 

And for any who can't come, perhaps you could persuade them to give you their proxy and come along and vote as you see fit based on what you learn at the Meeting?

 

I could be wrong but I think you might have once run for the Board, Mark. We could use someone like you with your clear vision that can identify systems and processes that are not beneficial.

 

Bruce, it must be the job of the Board once they've done the basic compliance things to be taking us forward based on our min regulation, min cost, max (safe) fun.

 

We must start to challenge everything. We have annual registrations that are not needed because we have 100 hourly / annual inspections. We have annual renewal of Pilot Certs when we have bi-annual flight reviews. We need to cut down on the paperwork that serves no useful purpose like Aircraft Condition Reports that are not pink slips or safety/airworthiness checks.

 

But, sadly, this Board doesn't seem to be able to get the basic compliance stuff right and then have to spend all their waking hours fixing the failures instead of lobbying for us to make real progress on the things that matter.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

My understanding of the situation Bruce, is that the CASA issue is that the errors aren't getting fixed. Steve Bell left 3 audits ago.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

I like Mark's approach of looking beyond whether you comply to whether that rule should exist at all.

 

However, while it does exist you have to comply. If you don't like it - get it changed. But, until it is changed you must comply.

 

 

[spottydog]

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

Hi Mark

thought you had fallen of the face off the earth, hope the pitot cover is still working, are you going to bulldust castle on the 9th, anyway seems like you have a handle on the public service, what I want to know is who , how and where is all the information that was handed in when the aircraft was first registered, with the last aircraft I submitted it twice with two lots of photos and they were missing only two month ago?????. cheers catch you for a beer . spottydog

 

 

[Markdun]

Yep, I am going, and so are all the guys I fly with here in Canberra. I did stand for the board. And I am happy to accept proxies. I have been thinking of possible resolutions for the meeting and I am keen to get feedback. What are other people thinking?. Uppermost in my mind would be resolutions something like this (a) a censure of the practice of refusing to give any member a document in accordance with the constitution (if it is true that members have been refused); (b) a requirement that the ceo must give any document to a board member within two working days of the request from the board member; © requiring the board to publish on the website the following documents within 7 days of the general meeting 'the deed with CASA, all coorespondence from and to CASA in relation to aircraft registration, including the CASA audits (redacted to avoid identifying individual members unless they can publish them on a members only site like the HGFA has), all delegations the board has made to the ceo/management of the association's powers (including contracting, but excludings powers given to specified officers under the op and tech manuals), (d) something about having a plan of action on avoiding this fiasco again and publishing this to members within 4 weeks. I can think of more (such as controling the blow-out in employee expenses over the last few years). I think just asking questions is not enough. What do we want our association to do? Mark

 

 

[Markdun]

Hi Markthought you had fallen of the face off the earth, hope the pitot cover is still working, are you going to bulldust castle on the 9th, anyway seems like you have a handle on the public service, what I want to know is who , how and where is all the information that was handed in when the aircraft was first registered, with the last aircraft I submitted it twice with two lots of photos and they were missing only two month ago?????. cheers catch you for a beer . spottydog

Hi. I've been sailing in qld after launching the 11m catamaran I built in Jan 2012. I think I have the mud wasps under control...only problem has been the insect eating antichinus that have decided to build nests on my engine and in my wings, and the feral pigs that dont like nice smooth grassy airstrips.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Good stuff Mark. Obviously, if you want some of those things in the Constitution, it requires a Special Resolution, 21 days notice of motion and 75% pass mark of those who vote.

 

However, there are some instructions we should be able to give the Board at the Meeting. The first thing must be just do what you are already supposed to do. Like a synopsis of Board Meeting Minutes within 30 days of the Board Meeting.

 

Don't hold a meeting of Board Members and not invite three Board Members (McKeown, Birrell and Tatlock). How do Victorians feel about both Vic Reps being on the outer with Runciman's clique and not getting an invite to the SOS meeting they are having on Friday? You should be proud of their integrity but perhaps not so happy with Runciman and Middo for excluding them. Anyone like to turn up at the Office at 0830 on Friday for a rowdy demonstration against the Claytons Board Meeting?

 

Board: Don't withhold any information from any Board Member - ever! Do comply with the Associations Incorporation Act, the CASA Deed and the Corporations Law! That would be a really good start. And don't appoint an ordinary member (Runciman) to the Board without them first going through an election process. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows you to do that and beware the ramifications for having done it.

 

We have to get this Board out of the way of thinking that they'll decide what we need to know. There really is very little that must be hidden from members. Very, very little.

 

Was anyone aware that the Constitution Review Committee has been reformed after Runciman pulled the rug on them last year? Might have been nice to have read something about that in the Magazine? Sounds like they could use the benefit of input from yourself Mark. The new CRC is Canberra based so you are in luck!

 

As Ian posted elsewhere, where is the Half-Year (31 Dec) financial results that should have been in the February edition of the Magazine according to the Constitution Rule 15? Runciman said in his letter to the editor that they were going to do better on getting the financial results out. Would be hard to do worse than they did at the AGM but this is not better. No commitment to actually do what the Constitution obliges them to do. When are these people going to get the idea that compliance is not optional? Best endeavours is not good enough - compliance requires, well, compliance!

 

 

[Guest L/D]

What a circumstance! I haven't logged on for months, so I am playing catch-up..

 

Obviously there have been issues in the Tech department of late, which I am led to believe plays a substantial part in the ongoing audits and subsequent grounding of aircraft. The Auditor, unfortunately for RA-Aus, knows where the weak spots are and as far as I know tried to advise the board many times of issues both in Tech and Ops areas. It would all be in his reports to the Board for the board meetings, though no one will ever get to see those I dare say. Now that he can wield the almighty stick, and CASA's corporate plan is homing in on surveillance of RAAO's, it's time to enforce regulation.

 

From CASA's Corporate Plan:

 

" As the amateur-built fleet expands over the next five years, CASA will be implementing an optimal organisational model to deliver regulatory oversight of recreational aviation administration organisations (RAAOs) . CASA has also stepped up its unscheduled surveillance activity, as well as its routine corporate and functional audits, to enhance oversight of

 

operations of RAAOs"

 

Bruce Tunks wrote: "While he did not mention Steve Bell's name, it was clear that Steve Bell was the person referred to and that he was guilty of using his own judgement and sense, and interpreting regulations as he saw fit, to help get members flying."

 

It seems as though Steve had clearly stepped outside the boundaries of his delegation, and unfortunate to the membership as it is, nothing will fall back on him. From what I hear it will take more than 3 audits to clean his mess up.

 

I am suspicious that part of the aircraft side of the problem lies with LSA and possible cross contamination with 95.55 type certificated aircraft. CASA has pulled almost all LSA CofA delegations back in. If the aircraft is type certificated to 95.55, it will stay there no matter how much some particular owners/importers argue with the Tech dept that it's not fair that the same aircraft can fly at 600kg under LSA and those aircraft are limited to 450kg (or whatever the Type Certificate states).

 

A huge vote of thanks and appreciation should definitely go to Dean Tompkins for continuing to jump into the seat whenever Tech Mgrs change to continue the cause. Unfortunately, having to audit every aircraft on the register, deal with disheartened membership and some importers, is no easy feat.

 

@MarkDun " Having to provide pictures of aircraft registration to 'prove' you have the proper markings is a good case in point. It adds nothing to safety, and little if any to compliance as such markings can fall-off or change in subsequent years, or be changed deliberately if someone really wants to. In my view it should be sufficient to have the rule on markings and leave it to members to comply or risk a fine."

 

RA-Aus is not a policing body. They cannot impose fines. Whilst most members do the right thing, the requirement for the photographs is precisely what the auditors will be wanting to see - that the aircraft was compliant at the time of registration and change of ownership. It is the Tech Managers butt covering mechanism to show that he did his job properly. What the owner does after that becomes the owners responsibility, and if caught, will then go through a series of reprimands with all opportunity to correct the fault, before it is referred to CASA to enforce compliance or face a fine.

 

It is definitely sad to see the organisation in such a state. Though if the CEO does not take an interest in the day to day operations of their staff, then there is bound to be mayhem and ad-libbing. Why is the CEO not accountable? Are there no weekly meetings to discuss current issues? The managers report to the CEO don't they?

 

 

[68volksy]

My understanding is that it is the RA-Aus ops manual that requires the photographs to be provided. This document was developed by RA-Aus way back and given to CASA as "The way we are going to do things". CASA then approved the manual. After a few years they came to make sure that RA-Aus were doing what they agreed they would do (i.e self-governing). Seems management threw out the ops manual once it was approved by CASA and started doing everything their own way.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

isn't self regulation great!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

isn't self regulation great!

Worked better back when i was regulating myself

 

 

[Teckair]

L/D said... The managers report to the CEO don't they?

 

The answer is no.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Worked better back when i was regulating myself

I find prunes help self regulation. They keep me regular.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

L/D said... The managers report to the CEO don't they?The answer is no.

Technically, they are "responsible" to the Board Exec. But organisationally, any real CEO would make sure the managers were doing their job. Our last CEO relied on his "duty statement" to avoid responsibility. Our Board Exec located in FNQ, Tassie and Dog Plain were unable or unwilling to do the CEO's job for him so it all went down the toilet.

 

 

[DWF]

Technically, they are "responsible" to the Board Exec. But organisationally, any real CEO would make sure the managers were doing their job. Our last CEO relied on his "duty statement" to avoid responsibility. Our Board Exec located in FNQ, Tassie and Dog Plain were unable or unwilling to do the CEO's job for him so it all went down the toilet.

It is not the Board's job to "do the CEO's job for him". It is the Board/Exec's job to make sure the CEO has a comprehensive and appropriate duty statement and then make sure that the CEO does his job properly [throw in a few KPIs here].

 

DWF

 

 

[68volksy]

Most CEO/General Manager duty statements i've seen are very broadly worded. Phrases such as "Ensures Organisations compliance with all applicable rules and regulations" and "manage organisation" are the norm. The board simply provides oversight and leaves it to the manager to run the place properly.

 

Not sure how anyone can talk themselves out of responsibility for anything when their job title is "CEO" however!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Agree....

 

Motherhood statement:-

 

Hurd the cats

 

P!ss no one off! who is a customer (and all that need it who are internal)

 

Make shedloads of money

 

Cut costs

 

Expand into new markets

 

Meet and exceed all legislative and environmental and community targets

 

What ever you achieved this year do even more next year!

 

Your Arse is the one that gets kicked no matter who started it.

 

Have I missed anything?

 

Andy

 

 

[68volksy]

Love it! That's why they get paid the big bucks in the bigger organisations!

 

 

[Markdun]

Alfa, if the Secretary doesn't inform all board members of a board meeting under Rule 18(iv), then the meeting is NOT a board meeting under the Constitution ....it is just a meeting of blokes, perhaps caucusing before the GM. You cant stop that. But they cant make any 'board' decisions at such a meeting.

 

L/D much of what you say is true (although the RAA can impose fines and sanctions on members, but I wouldn't want that promoted.....see provision B6 of the Constitution). However I disagree with you that one should have to 'prove' compliance at initial rego or when a plane is sold. I dont have to do it for the rego markings for my yacht, nor for my motorcar. 68volksy is correct that it is a rule in the ops manual, but in my view this is exactly the sort of rule that should be deleted, because as you say it doesnt stop non-compliance. Again in my view, and I would concede that this might not be agreed to, the RAA should be able and willing to 'register' an aircraft that on the specs provided by the owner falls outside 95.55, but with the proviso that the owner is informed the aircraft cannot be flown until it complies. We need to get away (far away) from the idea that RAA rego implies the aircraft is compliant or airworthy as it fosters the view that it the RAA's fault when a plane is found non-compliant, or not airworthy. I think the condition report reqt is also counterproductive for the same reason. I also agree there needs to be a lot of praise for hardwork at the RAA office. But i think there is an alot of work that could be ditched.

 

Weather permitting, I'm Kitfoxing tomorrow....slowere than the Cygnet, but that means more air time.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

 

[John G]

Hi Everyone,

 

Due to a lot of requests by RA-Aus members in my local area I have decided to bite the bullet and attend the RA-Aus General Meeting at Queanbeyan on the 9th February.

 

I have had a number of people who trust my judgement request that I act as their proxy at the meeting.

 

I am happy to accept any proxies from members of this site who have not as yet made up their mind as to who should hold their proxy vote.

 

If you would like me to hold your proxy vote you need to complete it and Email it to me before Friday.

 

My details are:

 

Email

 

[email protected]

 

Details of proxy Holder: John Gardon

 

PO Box 154

 

Wardell NSW 2477

 

Member #5334

 

You also need to select whether you wish me to vote in a particular way on each question; or how I see fit, if you trust my judgement.

 

In addition to sending it to me, you need to send it to

 

[email protected]

 

by 09:30 on Friday or I suspect that it will be judged invalid.

 

Regards,

 

John Gardon