RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[dodo]

what has emerged today puts any board member since June 2010 under somewhat of a cloud.

What emerged today?

 

I feel like I am the only one without some inside track to the facts...I suspect that makes me one of the 99% of RA-Aus members that struggle to find out what the hell is going on...

 

dodo

 

 

[turboplanner]

Recflying dot com dot au is your friend dodo - there is another thread relating to a censure motion against the President.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hi Turbz and others,For the less experienced and informed (me), could someone provide an explanation of what CFI's will now be required to do by August and how that differs from the past? It would be helpful to gauge how much work needs to be done (or not) with the club i am involved with.

Great discussion. Thanks to all contributors

 

CM

Chris, very generally from a template the FTF virtually needs to start from the time a visitor enters the car park - ensuring it is safe with lighting etc right through the office the flight to the departure out of the car park, and write. People in some industries have written a manual in six 3 inch binders, but the second requirement is that it can't just be a manual, it has to be a blueprint which is followed by everyone in terms of control, compliance and safety.

 

The FTF has to write its own manual based on its own situation and conditions. For example yours might only be able to use one side of the circuit, so the manual has to spell out how you will inform new pilots etc.

 

The CFI has to do this in a very short time, so anyone good on word processing, writing documents, analysing the FTF by walking around and looking at the hazards which need to be addressed, and anyone who has experience in Industries where briefings, safety clothing, regulations, area restriction etc are second nature will make his life much easier. A volunteer from a nearby large company who does this on his/her ear would be like gold, because these manuals tend to be reasonally standard.

 

So if you have these skills, I think the CFI would be overjoyed to see you.

 

I'd add that answering questions like this is probably why they needed Myles there immediately, which appears to be what CASA specifies in their documentation.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

For those that are interested, I advise that I have changed my position a little on this matter following a long discussion with Ed Herring last night, and taking Ed's advice in good faith, I am sad to say that I can now see some merit in one of Turbo's arguments....

It's good to hear this. I'm still cautious but optimistic. Hopefully actions follow his words...

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Is it true that when the board members voted a unanimous YES to support the President, did his request include a specific requirement/agreement to appoint a Safety/Training Manager?

I answered this in Post #110 - at least for Mike Smith (S Qld), and note that not only did his request NOT include a specific requirement/agreement to appoint a Safety/Training Manager, but there wasn't any unanimous YES vote, there wasn't a vote at all as I understood it, Ed simply said he would only accept the position (President) on the condition that he had the full support of the Board.

 

Just to be sure that I'm not putting words into Mike's mouth I'll flick him a link to this post right now, so he can confirm or correct it.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Turbo

 

Good on ya. You have done some research and went and discovered something.

 

I do like your "Post 180", the next thing how many here on this forum have read it and digested it.

 

Now everyone read Turbo's post 180.

 

I have been away working and have to digest what is here. What I have learnt there is a lot of missing correct information.

 

Post later when I can have a breather.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[nomadpete]

After trying to tie together all the little snippits on this forum ,My summary is:

 

RAAus has been aware of the need for inventing a SMS, for over two years (maybe many more than two) but due to lack of consensus by the board nothing has been done. And it looked like nothing was continuing to be done in spite of all the board's deliberations. To await due process would be tantamount to giving up all hope of ever complying with this CASA requirement. Our options on that are to either comply, or to negotiate out of it. Neither options were addressed. Furthermore, I have heard that having a safety officer is a requirement of Part 149 of the new regulations being implemented later this year.

 

So if Ed had not forced the situation, where would we be? Still unaware of our obligations and still in breach of our deed of agreement? Still leaving our training schools open to litigation because of failure to put in place a control for a known hazard?

 

But I don't really know. I'm still guessing. It would help to unify our membership if only we were presented with open honest communication by all stake holders.

 

Peter T

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think that's a pretty good guess you two - a CASA $60,000 sanction, probably as the start of a similar sequence to the registration audits may have injected some urgency too, but by far the biggest urgency is risk management.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I must say, it has been a pleasure to read the last few days worth of posts after the insults between forum members stopped.

 

 

[David Isaac]

What ... what insults ... did i miss something ...???

 

 

[dazza 38]

What ... what insults ... did i miss something ...???

They pretty much stopped after Ian's post #178. Fair enough too, we all have opinions and we will never all agree and things do get heated at time (remember the GST debate).

I am all for debates, hell, I will even turn a blind eye to a group of peeps who want to have a mass debate .

 

 

[Spriteah]

Hello again. I wish to add some information for the members. Many are asking why was this position not created long ago and why is it such an emergency now. I share in this question. When I found out that we operate under a 'deed of agreement' with CASA I asked where I can view it. This surprisingly was not in the possession of many of the board members and took some effort to get it. After reading it I become concerned that the RAA was not meeting its obligations and I posted to following on the Board Representatives forums:

 

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:06 AM

 

Board Members,

 

After reading the deed of agreement I have some questions.

 

1. Under Schedule D Pg22-23 there are requirements for us to create and roll out a Safety Management System. Have we so far complied? Are we on track with upcoming dates? Is there a current action/business plan tracking our progress with completing our requirements? What if any resources are tasked with achieving the CASA requirements within the allocated time frame?

 

2. Is this deed confidential? I note several paragraphs referring to confidentiality under Clause 19 however I suspect that is in reference to our dealing with CASA and not the deed itself?

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

Interesting enough only one board bothered to reply being John McKeown and that was supporting that the document should be shared with the membership. I might at that the post was viewed 47 times to date.

 

On the 10th of February 2013 at the board meeting I raised the issue with the full board. I was told by Steve Runciman that RAA has a SMS in place and that we need to improve it but it is not urgent. This role was given to Zane of Op's with a close out date of December this year (from memory). It is fair to say after this I don't think any of the board present believe there is any urgency which is now being pushed onto us.

 

On the 11th of April Steve Runciman posted that we had not met 3 of 5 requirements in the deed. After what had been said in the board meeting this came out of left field.

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[Spriteah]

RAAus members. I can only post information from our boards that I wrote as I have been criticized before for sharing others comments. But I will say that on the 9th of April 2013 Steve Runciman provided us with a paper with his views that we need to employ a training officer etc. I responded with the following:

 

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:15 AM

 

Steve and board,

 

Speaking as a person who holds OHS qualifications I fully support this idea. Although I am concerned as to the amount of staff wages we are spending the reality is that CASA will be looking at us under a microscope due to the fatality rate. We should be researching why there is an increase in incidents and actioning items. This is a great first step and increased safety training can only improve our organisation.

 

I am happy to provide any assistance you require if the board decided to take this course of action.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

Recently CASA organised a meeting to discuss the fatality rate (in the week of Steve Runcimans resignation). I immediately called the secretary and offered to fly to Canberra to assist with the CASA meeting as Steve R would not be attending and I believe it wise to have OHS representation present. The secretary did not want me to attend. I'm cannot say whether my attendance would have made a difference, I can say it certainly wouldn't have hurt.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

 

[Spriteah]

Well I guess he has to survive the coup attempt first, although what has emerged today puts any board member since June 2010 under somewhat of a cloud.I do have a question for the board members though, particularly John McKeown and Jim Tatlock:

 

Is it true that when the board members voted a unanimous YES to support the President, did his request include a specific requirement/agreement to appoint a Safety/Training Manager?

Turbo. Before I answer this question lets get some honesty going. For the information of the others reading this Turbo has asked questions or made comments related to a particular post made by Ed to the Board members forum. So Turbo knows the answers before asking the questions and I presume is attempting (hoping) that myself or John mislead this forum so we can be discredited. That is the only reason I can explain your actions and questioning. I presume you and Ed are friends or at least close in some manner. Perhaps a member of a Facebook lounge. I'm not one to lie.

 

The appointment of a Safety/Training manager was on Ed's wish list yes. Did he have my unanimous support to ignore protocol and the constitution absolutely not. Does he now have my support. No.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[kaz3g]

It would probably help everyone a great deal if the Deed of Agreement with CASA was available on the members' forum.

 

The Schedule to the Deed sets out a number of requirements with timelines and, included in these is the preparation and implementation of an SMS which, from memory was due some two years ago.

 

I support the immediate release of a draft SMS template for comment and will now also support the considered appointment of a Safety Officer provided the latter was not able to be positioned with CASA at the latter's expense. John Brandon's recent analysis of our safety record puts the spotlight on the issues and offers some solutions and it is in all our interests that early positive steps are taken in this area.

 

This change of position for me doesn't come easily and it will take quite a bit of time for my trust to be properly restored after Ed walked away from his statement of intent at the EGM. I am a process-driven person; my professional life revolves around rules (the law) and processes (applying it). I see everyday the consequences for those who break the rules and don't follow the processes and so I find it extremely difficult to accept unilateral departures from the required path.

 

That said, what is done is done. Time to move forward. Let's see the position role and accountabilities properly defined and the advertisements placed so that it can be legitimately filled soon after the 3 month interim appointment expires. And let's hope Ed is prepared to undertake to respect the rules in future so he doesn't lose all our respect instead...one such departure in the life of a President is more than enough.

 

I am delighted to see that at least a couple of very capable new members will soon be joining the Board and trust a couple more may be successful at the forthcoming elections. I hope that this new Board will work together and strenuously lobby both CASA and the incoming Minister for a significant increase in the lousy $100k they shell out while RAAus does the lion's share of the administrative work on the regulator's behalf because, at the moment, we seem to have just fallen a long way further behind the budget 8-ball.

 

kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

That's my point, "rumour and innuendo on a web forum" and an expectation that the board will involve all of the members in every thing they do.Yes, there's a lot of areas that could be improved, but maybe try asking instead.

Here's a contact list for RAA. http://www.raa.asn.au/contact/

 

Communication works both ways. If enough people contacted their elected representatives and spoke to them, maybe there'd be a little less rumour and innuendo causing high blood pressure. You do acquire flight planning information don't you?

Hi Gavin...kaz

 

 

[kgwilson]

I read up to page 6 before I gave up. Crikey what is going on here. Rules are rules. We have had a succession of elected representatives who think they make the rules and because they have assumed a position that makes it right. WRONG WRONG WRONG. What we have is anarchy and until we have those who accept the rules and work within them we are doomed to failure.

 

Why don't I just cruise into town and set up a stall outside Myers selling cheap perfume or whatever. How long would that last?

 

I can still get a Class 2 medical so why should I register my new aircraft with RAA when I can still go with SAAA. Nothing here gives me any reason at all.

 

 

[terryc]

Turbo. Before I answer this question lets get some honesty going. For the information of the others reading this Turbo has asked questions or made comments related to a particular post made by Ed to the Board members forum. So Turbo knows the answers before asking the questions and I presume is attempting (hoping) that myself or John mislead this forum so we can be discredited. That is the only reason I can explain your actions and questioning. I presume you and Ed are friends or at least close in some manner. Perhaps a member of a Facebook lounge. I'm not one to lie.The appointment of a Safety/Training manager was on Ed's wish list yes. Did he have my unanimous support to ignore protocol and the constitution absolutely not. Does he now have my support. No.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

Thanks for your honesty Jim, I new Turbs was trying to lead this thread into a direction to suit his purposes but couldn't see why, now I do.

 

I've always enjoyed his posts and respected his views but I must say I'm a little bit disappointed.

 

 

[greybeard]

Hi Gavin...kaz

Who's Gavin?

 

[kaz3g]

Who's Gavin?

Not fair... that was my next question

 

 

[greybeard]

Not fair... that was my next question

I was ignorant before you were

 

[kaz3g]

what can I say...?

[Riley]

Several posters here have called Ed’s decision illegal, wrong etc. but most seem to agree that a Safety regime is required. Some have argued that Ed was wrong because it wasn’t urgent.So rather than join in yesterday’s emotional debate I stepped back and took an overview.

 

Jim Tatlock correctly took me to task yesterday for including him in the group of board members who have ignored the Constitution, pointing out he was one of the new members. I apologised to him for this mistake.

 

I’d like to point out that Ed also is one of the new members, not one of those who have habitually frustrated the members.

 

However, I have always advocated working in accordance with an Incorporated Association constitution rather than using it as a loose guideline, which is a fairly common activity in Australia.

 

Among the posts are some referring to “directors” and other aspects related to a Board of Directors. These are not relevant because RAA is not a Pty Ltd company.

 

About four groups have been actively trying to change RAA into a Pty Ltd company with sweet sounding enticements, but no framework or substance disclosed, so now would be a good time to look at Ed’s decision if he was Managing Director of Recreational Aviation Australia Pty Ltd.

 

There would simply have been a press release by the MD stating that in response to CASA requirements a safety regime had been established and that Myles had been appointed to oversee it. You would not have needed to be consulted, would not have had a vote and really would be none the wiser as to costs and details until it affected you.

 

However you have a lot more control within RAA Inc.

 

So let’s first address the issue of whether Ed acted outside his powers; I’ve extracted the following clause from the Constitution, which you can download from the RAA website and check for yourself.

 

I’ve typed each section between commas on a separate line to emphasise the commas.

 

Recreational Aviation Australia, Inc. Constitution, Part III, II, (iv) Powers of the Board

 

"The President, Secretary and Treasurer shall form the Executive of the Association and

 

shall be responsible for all matters relating to the affairs of the Association whenever the Board is not meeting and,

 

subject to any decisions of the Board, shall make all the decisions necessary in relation to the Association's business and

 

shall act in the case of emergency.”

 

The clause does not specify whether decisions must be made collectively or severally, so that is optional

 

It does not specify any form of voting, so that is optional

 

Therefore it gives any Executive member, according to line two the right to make decisions on all matters between board meetings.

 

Line four gives him more power; it means that with the exception of decisions made by the board on some matters, the Executive is empowered to make ALL the decisions.

 

And finally in line six is a vague authority to act in an emergency.

 

So Ed has not contravened the constitution, as so many of you are arguing, and there is no requirement for an emergency before Ed can act, as others of you are arguing.

 

Some of you may remember that two years ago I pointed out that in the long dim past some clique has obviously inserted this power clause into the Constitution to serve their own purposes. The drafting is extremely poor.

 

I recommended that the first action of members and any new board members should be to:

 

(a) Get rid of this clause, which would then allow full democratic operation

 

(b) Get rid of all reference to Board and Board Member, and replace that with Committee and Committee member to remove the confusion with Pty Ltd

 

Boards of Directors etc.

 

A Constitution Reform Committee was formed, but the plot was lost and these changes were not made.

 

Ed is entitled to act under this clause if he wishes, because it is the Rule of the Association and is not out of order.

 

So a lot of people have a lot of apologising to do.

 

There is no point at all in trying to argue that the Executive should consult the board members while this clause is there, because it says the opposite.

 

The big benefit of the Association’s Incorporation is that if you don’t like this clause, if you don’t like the Executive making decisions without consulting the board members, you are only one single Meeting away from removing that clause, provided you comply with the Constitution in terms of prior notice, voting numbers etc.

 

This is a very short term decision – just out to September it’s not the same as Tizzard’s job and the Myles appointment is for about 90 days, by which there will either be a policy on the ground or he will be toast.

 

Someone announced that CASA doesn’t tell us what to do. Big Words, but there is a Deed of Agreement which RAA must comply with.

 

Was there any urgency for Ed’s decision?

 

Independent of this, I was looking at the elevated level of silly fatalities, many which indicate poor training, and found the duty of care obligation seemed to end with instructors and CFI’s (quite a frightening prospect for any CFI/FI).

 

I came to the conclusion, completely unaware of any board discussion on safety that there was a missing link – compliance and enforcement within the RAA structure which was overseeing the standards and responsibilities of the instructors who were turning loose certificate pilots, but then assuming they no longer held any responsibility. I have posted on that on this forum, and I do see immediate action required.

 

From many of yesterday’s comments I’m not alone in that aspect.

 

Returning to the urgency of any decision, we’ve learned this week that Steve Runciman had recognised the urgency a year ago, and while fellow members were dying, board members, I presume some of the ones loudly complaining now, were finding ways to delay any corrective action.

 

This should have been a major debate within the Association – all members – and many skilled people could have contributed skills from industrial compliance experience etc., but how many of the board members contacted the people they represented and told them there was a safety discussion?

 

So let’s look at a few facts:

 

·There has been an elevated number of pilot/passenger fatalities, quite a few of these pointing to training/currency.

 

·The Goulburn crash case has been settled, and “settled” means that RAA and CASA while not admitting they were negligent, did not prove they weren’t either. A safety regime sends out a message that things are different this week.

 

·The Association’s Insurer refused to renew his policy – not exactly a minor matter. It will be critical to work with the new insurer to minimise his risk, and a safety regime will immediately give him confidence that this is under way.

 

·The four CASA audits have resulted in a huge backlog of registrations, but CASA’s actions have discovered overweight aircraft, and non-compliant aircraft, and the process they have insisted on and which RAA is adhering to is ensuring none of these get back into the air unless they are brought into compliance. A safety regime will give CASA and the Minister more confidence that any future anomalies will be picked up faster, or avoided.

 

·The story that CASA believe RAA is in breach of its Deed of Arrangement and reduced or threatened to reduce the Grant payment by $60,000 is checkable and provable.

 

After the fiasco of ignoring three CASA Audits, and as a result putting hundreds of pilots and owners in a parlous situation I would have thought all board members would have acted with utmost urgency, but here we see that they sat and fiddled and frustrated the previous President and well as the current one. A safety regime takes the heat out of this, and if it is quickly workable, CASA can relax and will not have to apply sanctions like they did with aircraft registrations, and if it is effective we will see fatalities reduce; that in itself is urgent.

 

Various people have speculated on the long term future with the extreme being Dafydd Llewellyn’s well written siren call that the end is nigh and those who can pass the medical and register their aircraft VH should come to CASA. This you will realise leaves a few thousand people out of flying.

 

I think RAA is at a crisis point of a sort, but I believe it can weather the CASA audit fallout with some smart management.

 

What it doesn’t have the resources for is a big string of multimillion dollar claims. This decision is the beginning of the journey to ensure this is managed, and one of the key decisions for long term survival and growth of the Association as we know it.

 

Why would I do a 180 degree and support ED?

 

1.It was the first sign I have seen in recent years of decisive action to make what is a critical survival decision.

 

2.He announced it when he made it, and that is a first sign of a new board transparency.

 

As a political animal, I’ve been watching the poll since the thread started.

 

Right through yesterday’s passionate statements, some would say lynching preparations the vote barely moved; it didn’t support the rhetoric. It might have gone up about 3%, but that in no way created a mandate to move a vote of no confidence in the President. In fact it would not even have got a mandate to change the constitution.

 

To some extent we are all wasting our time here because Ed’s future will be decided by board members, however, I would ask you all to read carefully what I’ve written, and give it some thought.

turbs:

I've read your post, I've given it some considerable amount of thought but my assesment is ...."60% codswollop"! Having met Ed some years back, I have no reservations regarding his content and ability to do RAA a hell of a lot of good; I also believe that he made his contentious decision with the very best of intent; I anticipate that with a good crew supporting him RAA will eventually claw their way out of this cesspool that the previous board have generated for us, - all of the above;....BUT...... the creation & filling of this position was done in a manner that is both unacceptable by our constitutional format AND without due regard to the general membership of who's welfare he is directed to support. However honourable the motive, there cannot be a wash-off of the fact that we, the paying public, were not accorded either knowledge of, nor the ability to participate (by way of our regional representation) in whether constitutional requirements needed to be by-passed to achieve the most acceptable resolution to an urgent situation. As others have said, RAA management decisions in the past have been much less than brilliant and the bottom line is, despite the pressing fiduciary situation, (even though having re-acted positively) Ed was totally out of line in his implementation. Whether ratified or rejected at the Sept meeting, the fact is that the unconstitutional, non-promulgated and un-budgetted expenditure will remain on our expense line. I reject the bulk of the content of your justification post however, I'll stand up and eat crow if you can ultimately shown me where I'm wrong. Purely & simply - I believe ED will be good for RAA but only if he totally dismisses the 'shoot-from-the-hip' procedures of the previous board that have brought us to the low level that we currently exist in. Again, I'm open to sensible and legal rebuttal advice. A seriously concerned Riley.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Thanks for your honesty Jim, I new Turbs was trying to lead this thread into a direction to suit his purposes but couldn't see why, now I do.I've always enjoyed his posts and respected his views but I must say I'm a little bit disappointed.

Thanks for your honesty Jim, I new Turbs was trying to lead this thread into a direction to suit his purposes but couldn't see why, now I do.I've always enjoyed his posts and respected his views but I must say I'm a little bit disappointed.

I hope you mean knew instead of "new". He doesn't have to even bother posting, he does though because he is passionate with all aviation. Alan does do a lot research for us.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

After all the instability of the past couple of years the board still cannot make the distinction between governance and management. If our own health was as bad as RAAus we would go to the doctor.....the board needs professional help instead of the so called management remedies often promoted on this forum.

 

Without proper governance starting with a strategic plan and performance based management, this organisation will lurch from disaster to disaster. Lets get back to basics, learn from the mistakes of the past and make some real investments in restructuring for the future.

 

There must be ordinary members, such as myself, that are in despair of a way out of this mess. Lets concentrate on bedding the board into its real role.....as a starting point

 

Pete