RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[fly_tornado]

Any idea how much its going to cost each FTF for Myles's services?

 

 

[David Isaac]

It really is amazing what you have uncovered in your investigations Tubz, a credit to you. It also explains Ed's frustrations with the implementation of the entire SMS.

 

The pity is that none of this information has been made available to the members.

 

I can assure you that if we (the members at the EGM on February 9 this year at Queanbeyan) had been aware of the failure to comply with the CASA deed and our obligations under the deed and the Boards recalcitrant actions now evident from the apparent additional crisis we find ourselves in; the Board would have been held accountable at that meeting.

 

Again cloaks of secrecy surrounding the Board's poor performance has compromised our very rights to register and fly RA Aus aircarft.

 

This whole unfortunate series of events is a result of consecutive failures of Boards to perform. Maintaining secrecy from the members has just compounded the problems we are experiencing today.

 

Certain elements of this Board clearly have to go.

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree David. There would have been a whole new complexion on the thrust of the meeting. The fact of it not being brought up would seem as if it wasn't taken seriously. The "masses" were not told. I can't help thinking if it had been brought to this forum things would have been different. Or if the "facts" had been told any other way. All we got was a suggestion of failed audits. Was the techman a fall guy? Who was supposed to do this SMS? Nev

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

For the umpteenth time, the RA-Aus Board signed off on an SMS at the February 2012 Board Meeting!

 

Jonathon Aleck and Lee Ungermann (iirc) attended a part of that Board Meeting to thank the Board for having finally achieved that milestone. After having established the SMS, the next stage, obviously, was to roll it out to the FTFs. This was clearly a task for the CEO to manage. The CEO was also assigned a number of tasks that came out of the Risk Assurance workshop that preceded the Feb Board Meeting.

 

The SMS was just one element of the overall risk management strategy for RA-Aus. At the Risk Assurance Workshop, there were many other risks (in addition to the Ops/Maint risks ) considered, documented and action item list produced. These included financial risks. Sadly, over the next 12 months, the CEO never managed to get any of the tasks related to the SMS or the management of other risks far enough up his priority list for anything at all to happen.

 

No criticism of the CEO was allowed by the old guard who had gifted him the job and in fact he was given a 15% pay rise just two months after the annual (December) payrise had been paid. This increase I argued strongly against but was unable to get sufficient votes to stop Runciman, Middleton, Herring, Reid, et al, pushing through the increase. Despite asking that if they were going to pay the increase that some form of performance criteria be attached to the CEO's salary increases this also was turned down by the old guard.

 

By this time it was obvious that there were serious issues surrounding registrations of LSA aircraft. The Tech Manager resigned and then more problems with registrations were discovered.

 

And then the insurance renewal that had been coming for only 12 months was mismanaged by the CEO and the broker, resulting in the liability insurance cover lapsing and a series of week by week extensions came in to play.

 

In the real world, every business in Australia is obliged to provide a safe system of work for those employed in the business. A safe system translates as a Safety Management System. Every publicly accessible airfield and probably all private ones as well have to be managed for safe operation. Nothing new here. Any FTF that does not operate a safety management system now would be not just nuts but in breach of the duty of care that they owe to employees, clients and the general public.

 

So, what we are all really talking about here is getting a bit more systematic and documenting the system to an approved template. You not only have to have a SMS you have to be able to show you have - one written down. I am not suggesting that formalising the SMS is a bad thing but it doesn't mean we didn't have one all along.

 

Part of any system, of any kind, is a feed back loop. You set out to do something and then you check the result to see if it is what you expected and then you adjust the system and go round the loop again.

 

RA-Aus has an audit function in the form of the Ops and Tech Managers. The Ops people go around doing, well, audits of the FTF operations. They are checking that the FTF have systems in place to ensure their schools run well, produce good results and protect their students. For that matter the CFI of an FTF is the chief auditor of his school. Every day he will be looking at what's going on and making judgments about how things are going.

 

CASA has run their own Risk Assurance Workshops using the same people, Aerosafe, that they recommended to RA-Aus. One of CASA's risks that they need to manage is RA-Aus. Some aspects of their risk management strategy is to require RA-Aus to go through the same Risk Assurance Workshop, have a documented SMS, check up on RA-Aus to see they really do have a sensible SMS actually implemented across all its operational areas.

 

What happened between May 2012 and June 2013 is anybody's guess because this Board is never going to tell you for fear that they will be seen to have failed the people they represent. We know that Jim Tatlock and John McKeown have tried to slip us some information and been roundly abused for it.

 

The things we went to Queanbeyan to see the last of were Secrecy, poor governance including jobs for the boys.

 

Anyone notice any change since then? If anything it is actually worse now.

 

If RA-Aus is to have any chance for the future, we need a new Board. To get that members must learn about who is standing and VOTE!

 

 

[pilotjames]

Communication is the name of the game. If the board had released the minutes of meetings, including board meetings, like they were supposed to, we would have know about the SMS problems and the failures of the board a lot sooner and then those of us at the EGM in February could have directed the board down a different. O I forgot, they never listen to the members anyhow, so that is why we are here now. We told them over and over again at the EGM about various issues, they said they were listening, we would do better, but they did not listen to the members really and here we are again, at another crisis in our movement.

 

This new SMS system is going to generate a lot of strain on our flying schools to implement in time. Not their fault though, it was the Boards fault, they sat on their hands, did not communicate with the members or with each other enough, now they have a lot to answer for again.

 

North Qld has a by election looming, so we will be looking seriously here as to who we put onto the board. It is good to see that we have some new faces coming on the board in September. We want more new faces and for the new board elected to ensure they look very closely as to who they elect to executive positions. We do not want any repeats like we have being having over and over again in the past twelve months or so. Board solidarity for management is a must, but it must be done legally and comply with our constitution, and comply with all governance principles and procedures, and any contractoral arrangements that RAA may have such as with CASA (Deed of Agreement) which is what the past board and executives have not being doing.

 

I see that Mick Monck is running in NSW. He comes across as very educated and experienced working for and with big boards, and is a strong supporter for change in RAA. His portrayals at the EGM meeting in February were very spot on and he was willing to get up and say his comments eloquently. Pity I am not in his electorate, he sounds like a very good candidate. There is a couple of more in NSW who also sound very good, but we have never heard any inputs by these over the past months so it is impossible to evaluate them.

 

Mick Monck appears to have been there, has been doing a lot, has offered to help the board on a number of matters and has already shown that he is open to communication with his mail outs to some members. It appears that he has now been willing to put his hand up to give us, the general RAA membership, his valuable assistance. He is not one of the silent majority that everyone keeps referring to.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Mick would be a great addition to the RA-Aus Board. He has skills, experience and integrity that we desperately need.

 

He has my vote.

 

 

[David Isaac]

and mine

 

 

[kaz3g]

It really is amazing what you have uncovered in your investigations Tubz, a credit to you. It also explains Ed's frustrations with the implementation of the entire SMS.<snip>

The pity is that none of this information has been made available to the members.

You have done a lot of work on this Turbz and we are indebted to you for your efforts.

 

It does go to assist us to understand Ed's frustration although it doesn't explain why some Board members have been kept in the loop and some have been well and truly excluded by the former Executive. It even goes some way toward explaining the degree of urgency.

 

But it still doesn't excuse the failure to follow proper process by both Ed and Myles and, if this is not understood by all, there will always be the danger that RAAus will continue to be run as the plaything of a select few to the detriment of the Members' interests.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Teckair]

TB said... I recall imploring people to check into a $200,000 blow out which caused the last subscription increase of $27.00 and I was howled down on this site and told it was petty cash.

 

The airheads that think that should be made to pay the $200 K themselves.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No it doesn't, and yes it should be understood, but I see some light at the end of the tunnel.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Alfa Romeo, your midnight post reminded me of how dark the days were when we were on the board together. What an absolute bloody nightmare. With enough new faces on the board come September hopefully those days are behind us. After reading many of his posts here and speaking to him on the phone, I'd like to encourage everyone to consider voting for Mick Monke. He has shown a skill set that is so badly needed on the board along with the commitment required to be an effective rep.

 

Nick

 

 

[Spriteah]

I too have had enlightening conversations with Michael Monke and believe the skills he could bring to the RAA board would greatly benefit our future. As an organisation we are expand ever so quickly but not governing for the future. Hopefully now we have a competent General Manager the board can move its focus from the day to day to planning for the future.

 

Jim

 

 

[nomadpete]

Relevant to this thread:-

 

Did anybody notice in the minutes of the 28th March Board meeting -

 

that SR raised an "Urgent business without notice" item:

 

"Recruitment of a Training Safety Officer"

 

The result of which was "to be put on the board forum for further discussion". (ie no real action)

 

I find it disappointing that he had to raise it as business without notice (considering how long it has been a smoldering issue). However, at least he recognised it as URGENT and he was trying to push the board to take action. Now that I know this, I am prepared to accept that Ed saw no easy way to get action from the board.

 

Peter T

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

That sounds reasonable Pete but you may be putting the emphasis on the wrong word. To raise an item at the meeting that was not on the Agenda, it has to be labelled "urgent".

 

If it was so urgent and at the forefront of a President's mind, why had he not put it on the Agenda two weeks beforehand?

 

Why was it allowed to get to the level of urgency that made Ed feel he could abandon any form of due process and go unilateral?

 

Why would not the President, the Secretary or Ed himself called for a vote on the Board Forum back in April?

 

Why were the ordinary members kept in the dark about this unfolding calamity?

 

Sorry for all these rhetorical questions for which the answers are perhaps obvious.

 

 

[Spriteah]

What year are those minutes. If im not mistaken the last full board meeting was 10-11 of feb. Are you referring to the exec?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

No Jim you sent Geoff as your delegate for that meeting at Temora

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

WOW Nomad, what a bombshell you have unearthed!!!!

 

 

[dazza 38]

WOW current 50/50 as I post this in the pole.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

WOW current 50/50 as I post this in the pole.

I have delayed my vote on the poll until I could get a good grasp of what other forum members were thinking and not to jump in too early.

 

What if I had voted one way and now changed my mind?

 

Could I cancel my vote and cast another?

 

Just a thought as I think the original knee jerk would alter the final count

 

Phil.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I have delayed my vote on the poll until I could get a good grasp of what other forum members were thinking and not to jump in too early.What if I had voted one way and now changed my mind?

 

Could I cancel my vote and cast another?

 

Just a thought as I think the original knee jerk would alter the final count

 

Phil.

Great Points Phil. I wonder if poles can have some way for people to change their vote if they change their minds down the track.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Relevant to this thread:-Did anybody notice in the minutes of the 28th March Board meeting -

that SR raised an "Urgent business without notice" item:

 

"Recruitment of a Training Safety Officer"

 

The result of which was "to be put on the board forum for further discussion". (ie no real action)

 

I find it disappointing that he had to raise it as business without notice (considering how long it has been a smoldering issue). However, at least he recognised it as URGENT and he was trying to push the board to take action. Now that I know this, I am prepared to accept that Ed saw no easy way to get action from the board.

 

Peter T

It actually seems to me, bearing in mind Jim's failure to elicit any meaningful response to his questions about this issue from SR previously and the recent statements made by both Jim and John McK, that the revelation in the minutes is a strong indicator that only some Board members may have been privy to earlier conversations.

 

We know from the EGM that there have been other occasions where the Executive has deliberately kept some Board Members out of the loop and denied them access to important information bearing on the proper discharge of their fiduciary duties.

 

That the issue wasn't presented with a notice of motion requiring prompt action seriously detracts from any suggestion of the existence of an "emergency" necessitating abrogation of the ordinary processes that ensure honesty, transparency and the proper consideration of all the issues by our elected representatives. What happened during the two months following this meeting of the Board?

 

The question you are all contemplating here, or at least ought to be contemplating in my view, is not whether the end result is acceptable to a greater or lesser degree, but whether you want to have a single person making far-reaching decisions impacting budget expenditure, staff appointments, policy and everything else without oversight or accountability.

 

If you support the "one person band" solution then save us all a lot of money on Board travel and senior management expenses and accept the other consequences. If you support a democratically elected Board, accountable to you the Members, then you need to make it clear that the first solution is not an option at all AND you need to think about the qualities of those you elect to ensure you are properly represented.

 

A passion for flying and some level of technical expertise are more or less a given. But it is the job of the GM to ensure that there is an abundance of relevant technical expertise amongst the staff and it is the job of the Board to provide those other skills and experiences that have been identified by previous contributors that are essential for good governance.

 

I don't particularly want Ed to fall on his sword but I do want it made abundantly clear to him and all the Board that the course of action taken in this instance was totally unacceptable and must NEVER occur again.

 

Kaz

 

 

[John G]

Relevant to this thread:-Did anybody notice in the minutes of the 28th March Board meeting -

that SR raised an "Urgent business without notice" item:

 

"Recruitment of a Training Safety Officer"

 

The result of which was "to be put on the board forum for further discussion". (ie no real action)

 

I find it disappointing that he had to raise it as business without notice (considering how long it has been a smoldering issue). However, at least he recognised it as URGENT and he was trying to push the board to take action. Now that I know this, I am prepared to accept that Ed saw no easy way to get action from the board.

 

Peter T

Let's not forget that Myles was on the Exec at the time of SR's motion and the subsequent months and therefore complicit and equally guilty of inaction.

 

What makes us think that Myles will change his spots?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have delayed my vote on the poll until I could get a good grasp of what other forum members were thinking and not to jump in too early.What if I had voted one way and now changed my mind?

Could I cancel my vote and cast another?

 

Just a thought as I think the original knee jerk would alter the final count

 

Phil.

I don't think a recflying poll would really influence the board members Jab, and you're correct, those of us who voted early are locked in on the issues public at that time. For people like me who have a lot to do with them a flicker here or there can give you an indicator or what's happening with sentiment, and I just wanted to see minor trending and whether there was a massive feeling one way. Out of 10,000 members 100 is really just a sampler, in this case of the most passionate people.

 

 

[pilotjames]

"Never occur again" kaz3G said in post 371.

 

History over time has a habit of repeating itself. Inaction on this issue by board / executive could well lead to inaction by staff / board / executive on any other matter/s.

 

Lets look only at the last 5 months. Following on from the February EGM we have board member/s saying "we will do it better", "it will not happen again", etc. Here we have another situation that may even be a bigger gaff than last time. Following on from the February EGM we find an email on how the Board had beaten the members at the February EGM.

 

Now we have the President / Executive lording it over other Board members and the general membership yet again. They are now becoming a law unto themselves and when something else arises they will once again say, we have won the last two big issues, now bring on the next round and we will win it also, as we have abdicated any members rights.

 

No checks and balances, no control by the membership or by fellow board members of the Executive.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I don't think a recflying poll would really influence the board members Jab, and you're correct, those of us who voted early are locked in on the issues public at that time. For people like me who have a lot to do with them a flicker here or there can give you an indicator or what's happening with sentiment, and I just wanted to see minor trending and whether there was a massive feeling one way. Out of 10,000 members 100 is really just a sampler, in this case of the most passionate people.

Yes TP agree.

 

I also suspect that of the 100 odd voters, some may not even be Raaus members

 

Phil