RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[flyvulcan]

Looking at the prospective members of the Board, the thing I do NOT see is: A comprehensive understanding of the Civil Aviation Regulations . . .

Dafydd,

 

These are very true words. Not only a knowledge of the Regulations, but also a good grasp of interpreting and understanding the Regs will be needed within our organisation.

 

It would be good to have at least one person on the Board with this skill set, but also, it would be highly desirable for the General Manager, who has responsibility for the day to day operation of the Organisation to also have this skill set, as well as the Technical Manager.

 

If we eventually incorporate a Quality Management System, the Quality Manager, by nature of his role would have this skill set and should be able to advise the GM/Board on these matters.

 

 

[sandman]

Well said Keith, like your style ol mate, how's the jab going?.

 

 

[Chird65]

... This thread is about the safety-training-compliance-coordinator; presumably people imagine they can simply delegate all that pestiferous CAR/CASR/CAO stuff to him,...No, it is NOT sufficient to be familiar with CAO 95.55, the Deed of Agreement, and the RAAus constitution. ... the exemptions in CAO 95.55 do NOT include CAR 235 or CAO 100.7 - which set the requirements for weight & balance control for ALL Australian aircraft. The organisation has been going since 1983 under various names, and it STILL has not grasped this?

This is something I have been trying to say for a long time. RAA is a part of GA. Every time I hear someone say should I go RAA or GA, i see people just looking at their small world.

 

Back to topic;

 

We need a SMS as it is in our agreement, to achieve this an accountable person is needed, but in the end we are all responsible to make sure this works.

 

Just as the SMS formalizes what we are doing and trying to achieve, we need to ensure that the SMS changes to accommodate change and our end point.

 

BTW our end point is safer flying.

 

 

[Guernsey]

878 posts...stone the crows, I gave up reading them at around post 100. .

 

Alan.

 

 

[facthunter]

You're still doing it Guernsey. ( and stiffen the jewey(sp) lizards). Nev

 

 

[Guernsey]

???? Must be an aussie expression, please explain.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

This forum is like going to a party and being bailed up by your crazy neighbour who insists on retelling the story of the menzies years.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A bridge near my house has the slogan Menzies out now! painted on it. Its been there a while. Has he really gone?

 

 

[Teckair]

This forum is like going to a party and being bailed up by your crazy neighbour who insists on retelling the story of the menzies years.

There might be some sort of special help available for you.

 

 

[coljones]

A bridge near my house has the slogan Menzies out now! painted on it. Its been there a while. Has he really gone?

He was forced out by the right wing of the party

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Whether learning to fly or learning to drive a car there is a degree of experiential learning that is entirely proper and relevant - a practical transfer of knowledge and skill from the person instructing, to the student.

 

It is also a learning process that needs no student text book and indeed, from my past experience working in adult education, I have witnessed students who, with only the very basic literacy skills, have become successful and proficient pilots. Of course just like any other student pilot, how proficient will depend upon the quality of instruction, the aspirations of the student, the rules that regulate their local and regional airspace, but most of all, I would suspect, their peers.

 

It is the value of peer review and peer pressure that I would like to mention here, as it can be both a powerful tool for the promotion of air safety and flying skill development, or conversely the daring-do culture, incorporating the undesirable elements we sometimes see/find in recreational and GA flying.

 

At the end of a days flying at our small Club it is common to sit around a table and debrief over a few drinks. In Mildura we are fortunate to experience a wide variety of flying disciplines from regular RPT aircraft (including Jet aircraft), Air Ambulance and GA/IFR traffic, Helicopter movements, three Flying Schools and a Glider Club, two nautical miles to the S/W. A sister Club and RAAus Flying school is located twelve nautical miles to the N/W. The debriefing exercise, encouraged by our RAAus Flying Schools, is invaluable in resolving the issues specific to our particular regional circumstances.

 

I make this point because without regular debriefings by ordinary RAAus pilots, someone, from outside our flying discipline, might seek to change a regulations that would restrict our access to local airspace. We are successfully identifying and attending to the issues as they impact on our local situation. However regulations, while important and necessary, should not drive the social behavior of our recreational aviation movement – that is something we should do for ourselves.

 

In other posts I have proposed that the strategic directions for RAAus should be set by the thinking of regional clubs and members with RAAus being the clearing house of ideas and aspirations. I do not agree with some of the posters on this forum that board members need in-depth technical knowledge of the aviation industry. A knowledge of good governance and management (which could be learned on the job), a passion for recreational aviation and common sense would be enough. Technical expertise can be imported, by the Board, as required. Skill based boards while desirable are not absolutely necessary if a cohesive board and management team can be assembled.

 

To me two way communications with the membership (field), is still the major consideration, as that is where the ideas, skills, talents and future reside. I would also suggest that the adoption of contemporary governance and management practice is professionally managed and there is no attempt to compromise the new system, with the failed old one.

 

Pete

 

 

[Oscar]

I do not agree with some of the posters on this forum that board members need in-depth technical knowledge of the aviation industry. A knowledge of good governance and management (which could be learned on the job), a passion for recreational aviation and common sense would be enough. Technical expertise can be imported, by the Board, as required. Skill based boards while desirable are not absolutely necessary if a cohesive board and management team can be assembled.

Pete, that is a very good summary of the ideal situation. The best managers I have ever worked with were the ones that understood the scope of the operations that needed to be undertaken and the skills set(s) needed to perform them and who could assess (and also select by assessment) the competence of their staff to undertake those tasks. Then they basically communicated downwards any relevant strategic directions that needed to be taken into account, monitored the performance of their jurisdiction and basically supported their staff in achieving the objectives of the corporation/unit. Of course, they also communicated upwards on any matters affecting the ability of their unit to achieve its requirements and goals.

 

That said - RAA is required to operate in a heavily technical area in compliance with a complex set of rules. It does require that Board members appreciate the complexity of those rules - not necessarily chapter and verse to act as auditors of staff performance, but to understand the framework within which their staff are performing their duties. We must not, for instance, have a repetition of a Technical Manager being pressured to accept registration of an aircraft with weight limits contrary to the requirements - and that has happened.

 

So, there needs to be at least a decent balance on the Board of people with various areas of expertise who can recognise the requirements placed on the organisation and steer its strategic directions. I have worked in a number of organisations run by a Board/Council, and the best of those always had operational matters presented by the operational staff so they understood the full gamut of the situations and then made informed decisions on strategic policy in the complete knowledge of all requirements that constrained such activity. Compliance with the 'governance' requirements is only one facet of the skills we need on the Board - we also need people with a keen appreciation of the technical complexity of our environment who can support the work of the staff who have to ensure compliance with the rules.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

...... Compliance with the 'governance' requirements is only one facet of the skills we need on the Board - we also need people with a keen appreciation of the technical complexity of our environment who can support the work of the staff who have to ensure compliance with the rules.

I agree absolutely and I hope that people who have listened to us bang on and on about governance don't think that is all we want, it clearly isn't.

 

However its is IMHO an aspect that has been in shorter supply than required of recent years. Failures in technical areas can't be fixed by the immediate application of corporate governance, but those same failures can be detected well in advance of failure by good governance and an appropriate get well process initiated with the right skills and experiences.

 

So, as you say we need it all, and like a balanced diet any deficiency in any area will end up harming us.

 

I hope those that vote in NSW at the moment are considering what a potential NSW rep brings to the totality of the board.

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

Andy, you can bet the farm that I have considered that in my vote for a NSW rep. - but once again, I have to say that I think the idea of regional representation vs skill set representation is now past its use-by date. I'm NSW, but damn it, if the best set of skills all comes from SQ, then so be it.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, you can bet the farm that I have considered that in my vote for a NSW rep. - but once again, I have to say that I think the idea of regional representation vs skill set representation is now past its use-by date. I'm NSW, but damn it, if the best set of skills all comes from SQ, then so be it.

Yep...historically I've always said that if I want info I ring the right rep, not the region I happen to live in rep.

 

What you argue is something I would support in constitutional evolution, but I'm not so sure the rest of the Australian membership is entirely ready to accept a board made up of, for example, Purely (insert whatever stare you choose as an example)

 

I think a hybrid is likely to be on offer first, reps from regional areas for the majority and perhaps the best suited member candidate Australia wide for the roles that need specific skills and experience over the location of my house.. Hopefully the on again off again Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) will start up again and can consider the appropriate evolution required.

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

I believe that there is a crying need for 'regional reps.' to represent the organisation to regional authorities: to fight airfield closures etc., generally promote the activity (and I want to see us evolve to something that is broader than just 'Recreational' aviation, but in fact part of regional area support infrastructure, so people can use RAA-class aircraft to deliver goods and services).

 

But the Board itself, should be based on filling a nominated set of skills. We need people with Compliance, 'Governance', Financial Development, Public Relations and even political lobbying skills. We are not outside society, and we need to be able to operate effectively within the environment of society. Look at, for instance, the motoring organisations, and you will see that all of these skills are necessary for them to be effective. We are no different.

 

 

[nomadpete]

878 posts...stone the crows, I gave up reading them at around post 100. .Alan.

So now you're only looking at the pictures?

 

 

[nomadpete]

T

 

He was forced out by the right wing of the party

That is matter of apinion.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The better model of management for the RAA is to have committees based on functions, schools, students, pilots, events, government relations and planes and have a system of local area representatives that can tap into that expertise. the current system isn't working too well, continuing with it at the cost of missing a lot of good opportunities to grow the sport.

 

 

[ruffasguts]

I believe that there is a crying need for 'regional reps.' to represent the organisation to regional authorities: to fight airfield closures etc., generally promote the activity (and I want to see us evolve to something that is broader than just 'Recreational' aviation, but in fact part of regional area support infrastructure, so people can use RAA-class aircraft to deliver goods and services).But the Board itself, should be based on filling a nominated set of skills. We need people with Compliance, 'Governance', Financial Development, Public Relations and even political lobbying skills. We are not outside society, and we need to be able to operate effectively within the environment of society. Look at, for instance, the motoring organisations, and you will see that all of these skills are necessary for them to be effective. We are no different.

I say again

 

RECREATIONAL aviation is what Raaus is all about, the means to and end mentality belongs in GA , is this where we have gone wrong wanting GA privilages on a pilot certificate

 

Mick W

 

 

[Robert]

I say againRECREATIONAL aviation is what Raaus is all about, the means to and end mentality belongs in GA , is this where we have gone wrong wanting GA privilages on a pilot certificate

Mick W

Agree with you Mick all the way this is the problem that will destroy Raaus. I wish people that want these GA privilages would leave and go to GA and let Raaus get back to what it was originally about.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I say againRECREATIONAL aviation is what Raaus is all about, the means to and end mentality belongs in GA , is this where we have gone wrong wanting GA privilages on a pilot certificate

Mick W

I don't think we can blame GA privileges at this point. We are limited to day VFR, outside of controlled airspace, a maximum of one pax, aircraft less than 600kg, etc. This compares with GA that can fly over 10,000ft, into controlled airspace, carry multiple passengers, fly aircraft up to 5700kgs all on a basic licence. To that they can add night VFR, retract, aerobatics, CSU, pressurisation/oxygen, IFR, turbine, and so on. Hell, you can even chuck parachutists out on a PPL! We're a long way off what 'they' have and we still can't manage. I think we need to take a look at ourselves and what we have before we blame our problems on something that is just a pipe dream.

 

That said, if the reason we have let our house get out of order is because we are too focussed on gaining the extra privileges then that's a slightly different argument but it still means that we have the wrong people at the top that are paying attention to the wrong things. I can't see this being the case though, I don't think anyone at the top has been paying attention to much at all be it maintaining what we have or trying to get access to more. I have seen no evidence of strategic thinking that would guide such a thing.

 

Either way, we need change. I won't tell you who to vote for but if you're in NSW then you have a choice, make it count...

 

Cheers,

 

Michael Monck.

 

 

[ruffasguts]

I don't think we can blame GA privileges at this point. We are limited to day VFR, outside of controlled airspace, a maximum of one pax, aircraft less than 600kg, etc. This compares with GA that can fly over 10,000ft, into controlled airspace, carry multiple passengers, fly aircraft up to 5700kgs all on a basic licence. To that they can add night VFR, retract, aerobatics, CSU, pressurisation/oxygen, IFR, turbine, and so on. Hell, you can even chuck parachutists out on a PPL! We're a long way off what 'they' have and we still can't manage. I think we need to take a look at ourselves and what we have before we blame our problems on something that is just a pipe dream.That said, if the reason we have let our house get out of order is because we are too focussed on gaining the extra privileges then that's a slightly different argument but it still means that we have the wrong people at the top that are paying attention to the wrong things. I can't see this being the case though, I don't think anyone at the top has been paying attention to much at all be it maintaining what we have or trying to get access to more. I have seen no evidence of strategic thinking that would guide such a thing.

 

Either way, we need change. I won't tell you who to vote for but if you're in NSW then you have a choice, make it count...

 

Cheers,

 

Michael Monck.

Not blaming GA privileges, but statements like Oscars post 891 and other posts on this forum advocating more privileges is taking us away from the RECREATIONAL aspect of our hobby . These pressures over the years have got us many privileges that we now enjoy, but I see the push toward GA as creating many problems in the future

Mick Wright

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Not blaming GA privileges, but statements like Oscars post 891 and other posts on this forum advocating more privileges is taking us away from the RECREATIONAL aspect of our hobby . These pressures over the years have got us many privileges that we now enjoy, but I see the push toward GA as creating many problems in the futureMick Wright

I guess what I was saying is that I don't see us having much in the way of GA privileges at the moment (ok, so it looks more like GA than it did 20 years ago but we're still a long way off) and that hasn't changed for at least the last five years which forms a large part of our recent mismanaged history. I recall there being talk about controlled air space around 3-4 years ago, maybe even a little longer, but nothing ever came of it. There is/was no strategic decision made for it, no reports were ever given on progress, we still haven't got it. Did we pursue it? What efforts were made? I suspect none as the only person I ever heard mention it was Steve Tizzard and, well, his performance was a little lacking. It's this latter aspect of RA-Aus related to a lack of performance that, in my view, has contributed to the problems we face now not the pursuit of more GA like privileges.

 

It does, however, raise an interesting question. What is recreational flying? Is it what we've got now? Is it something else? I've had a GA licence longer than I have held my RA-Aus certificate yet I have always flown for recreational purposes. I have been known on occasion to take a few passengers, fly into controlled airspace and so on but it has always been for fun. Some people may consider an exception to my flying - I am a drop pilot for the Australian Parachute Federation which may be construed as non-recreational but I do it purely for fun. I don't see us doing drop pilot duties anytime in the foreseeable future but where exactly are the limits of recreational flying? And whose view is the correct one? Yours? Mine? Oscar's?

 

I would be surprised if the board has even considered this question. Without asking and answering it there's no way we could ever move forward as an association as we have no idea what the hell we're trying to achieve!

 

 

[turboplanner]

The board could just start with the simple things, like just communicating with the members.