RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[turboplanner]

Would never do that buddy, I have too much respect for you , I may argue that your reasoning may be hypocritical in logic in this case though.

I'm not departing from years of work and saying a Constitution is there to be ignored.

 

My position is that it's critical to write a Constitution meticulously and precisely, and then to adhere to it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is "call me a hypocrite" anything like "call me a cab?"

Pretty much, just a bit more blue smoke.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Turbs

 

I don't think we are that far apart....... and Im certainly not out looking for your scalp (and hopefully neither the reverse)

 

I believe that the points of difference are:-

 

1) It was an emergency and Ed was entitled to act as he did.......I Don't agree and history has shown that I'm right. We aren't grounded today nor have we lost CASA funding today, yet the plan Ed set in motion HAS NOT DELIVERED because people are concerned not over what the plan intends but how it came into being. The plan was set in motion around the 5th of June its the 19th today and anyone who says that Ed was unable to get the board to meet and discuss and for Ed to arrange for delivery of the "Get your sh!t together letter from CASA" so that a clear determination of the direction forward in 14 days is wrong. We know the board is aware of the urgency (less than KeithPage suggested, but not no urgency)

 

2) Whether we did or didn't have all or some of an SMS in place is to me irrelevant. CASA tells us that we aren't meeting our obligations to them and they alone are the arbiter of whether we are or aren't then that point becomes moot.....we must do what is needed to get to the point that CASA says what is required is done (which is what your documentation shows)

 

3) was it the fault of just the current board, or those that were in place last year or the year before that and so on again is moot......get on with the issue today. That the board didn't deliver would suggest that the board was dysfunctional.......no...surely not that's a revelation !!!

 

4) The constitution is badly written......Yep, we knew that and that is why there was a CRC set up ages ago...but dissolved by SR and then re-established....but stood down while the organisation review that is moving forward at the pace closely approximating a snail... takes place. There will be delivery at some point in time and until then we have to work with what we have (AND THE MODEL RULES because if there's confusion you can be sure they will be a point of reference for anyone trying to establish what should happen if ours are confusing as written)

 

5) Ed is a Can do person, and we need can do people. Correct but never at the expense of the constitution and our established controls (financial delegations in this case) . I'm guessing that those who are most at ease with the approach Ed took will be small to medium business owners or seniors who work everyday to do what the business needs to survive and prosper. I'll equally guess those with the most discomfort operate in larger organisations where the "how you did it" is every bit as important as the "what you did" and never of secondary relevance.... Not to say that is right or wrong...just how I suspect it is.

 

I wont comment further because I think our differences are much less than our similarities......

 

At the end of the day I think we both agree that a plan that CASA accepts as moving towards resolving our obligation shortfalls and the actions needed to put it in place and maintain it are of significant importance...

 

 

[turboplanner]

TurbsI don't think we are that far apart....... and Im certainly not out looking for your scalp (and hopefully neither the reverse)

 

I believe that the points of difference are:-

 

1) It was an emergency and Ed was entitled to act as he did.......I Don't agree and history has shown that I'm right. We aren't grounded today nor have we lost CASA funding today, yet the plan Ed set in motion HAS NOT DELIVERED because people are concerned not over what the plan intends but how it came into being. The plan was set in motion around the 5th of June its the 19th today and anyone who says that Ed was unable to get the board to meet and discuss and for Ed to arrange for delivery of the "Get your sh!t together letter from CASA" so that a clear determination of the direction forward in 14 days is wrong. We know the board is aware of the urgency (less than KeithPage suggested, but not no urgency)

 

2) Whether we did or didn't have all or some of an SMS in place is to me irrelevant. CASA tells us that we aren't meeting our obligations to them and they alone are the arbiter of whether we are or aren't then that point becomes moot.....we must do what is needed to get to the point that CASA says what is required is done (which is what your documentation shows)

 

3) was it the fault of just the current board, or those that were in place last year or the year before that and so on again is moot......get on with the issue today. That the board didn't deliver would suggest that the board was dysfunctional.......no...surely not that's a revelation !!!

 

4) The constitution is badly written......Yep, we knew that and that is why there was a CRC set up ages ago...but dissolved by SR and then re-established....but stood down while the organisation review that is moving forward at the pace closely approximating a snail... takes place. There will be delivery at some point in time and until then we have to work with what we have (AND THE MODEL RULES because if there's confusion you can be sure they will be a point of reference for anyone trying to establish what should happen if ours are confusing as written)

 

5) Ed is a Can do person, and we need can do people. Correct but never at the expense of the constitution and our established controls (financial delegations in this case) . I'm guessing that those who are most at ease with the approach Ed took will be small to medium business owners or seniors who work everyday to do what the business needs to survive and prosper. I'll equally guess those with the most discomfort operate in larger organisations where the "how you did it" is every bit as important as the "what you did" and never of secondary relevance.... Not to say that is right or wrong...just how I suspect it is.

 

I wont comment further because I think our differences are much less than our similarities......

 

At the end of the day I think we both agree that a plan that CASA accepts as moving towards resolving our obligation shortfalls and the actions needed to put it in place and maintain it are of significant importance...

I assume, from the combination of rhetoric and silence that the board managers have confirmed the President's decision, CASA have gone back to a careful watch up to the deadline and Miles is operating at top speed. [don't jump to any conclusions, what I've written is what I've written]

 

That would then give the Association a less contentious but very difficult goal to achieve in a very short time, so that's where the focus should shift to.

 

As we know all board members have the onus to be involved in this with Myles the Co-Ordinator, and so far there is a deafening silence which MUST change urgently, or we will be talking about one more fail in September and certain penalties. You don't want to go there.

 

So Andy about your points:

 

1. I think head In the Clouds provided a very feasible explanation, the board members don't seem to have bothered publishing their version, and I'm not going to waste my time on the minutae

 

2. I had an interesting talk tonight with a former board member who was no shown the CASA job requirements for a board member and it goes back a long time. New and Incumbent Presidents dropped a gigantic ball.

 

Hopefully all board members have now printed off the Sport Pilot Self Administration Handbook 2010, and will have a lot more to attend to than they previously thought. It is a very powerful document, well written and concise

 

3. The board will change quite a bit soon, but dogmatic, procrastinating behaviour with the present major issues needs to be stamped out.

 

4. The Constitution needs a touch up - we are already working with the CRC result I think. I would delete the Executive entirely and that would reduce the number of cliques and clashes, however I would only update the Constitution a section at a time as issues crop up; it has produced enviable success compared to GA, so I'd be careful about breaking it. The recent problems have been more about people not doing their job and collecting into camps, or an employee bluffing the board members than any major framework issues.

 

5. This is where we differ. A Constitution which covered every eventuality would be bigger than the bible, not even large company procedure manuals do. So within the framework there has to be some give and take for extraordinary issues.

 

I don't want anyone going for the heart pills - extraordinary means what it says, and the person making the decision needs to justify it and the decision needs to be one which a majority of the members would have made.

 

Clearly this is not acceptable with RAA members now who have been beaten up by behind the scenes deals, jobs for the boys, secrecy and so on.

 

However, if there had been a decade of stability, if the board members were trusted, and if somehow a CASA imperative has slipped everyone's mind, no one would turn a hair if the President announced to everyone, "I had to do that, because of this, and this is what I've done.

 

We aren't charged with making RAA policy on this site, this is just a forum, and the members may reject what I'm saying, but I believe you need this safety valve now and again.

 

While you may have experienced large companies which did everything by the book, I have been blessed with some of the world's biggest, which at times let me commit millions of dollars based on my own assessments and decisions. Of course I would have been fired if any of them had failed, but through their trust they made hundreds of millions of dollars. So some of them also have this safety link.

 

Right now I would hope we're about to move into a lot of discussion and action setting up the RAA SMS system, and this will involve a huge requirement for assistance to FTF's, a network of volunteer safety compliance and enforcement people.

 

The good news is that if these systems are well written, and if you already have a safe environment, you'll find very little difference, it's just the setup and subsequent adjustments that are the pain in the bum.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Perhaps CASA are giving RA- Aus just enough rope... either to learn to tie some very solid knots to climb upon or well everybody knows the other outcome.... our SMS is well under way at FTF level.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Are you sure she has been fired? Are you sure she is not still working there?I'll answer the other details shortly.

I didn't say she had been fired and yes, I'm sure she is no longer working there. And I know quite a deal more but am unable to discuss because I do not have that permission. It doesn't stop me from being pretty disgusted, though.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Spriteah]

(YES Turbo):- Steve and Ed were being voted down by the board, by a majority rules thingo when we vote. Hence Ed's emergency actions.Thank you ED. Thank you Myles for stepping up to the plate.

Their (board) main gripe was "We can not afford that (SMS)". News we have to afford it or close shop.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

Keith, Can you indicate where in the minutes of meetings Steve and Ed were being voted down? I don't think a motion was ever put up. Even tell me which meeting and I will review them? I very much doubt you can. And if what you said was correct (which I do not believe it is) then you are supporting actions against governance. Lets look at that concept. I put up a motion and the majority of the board vote against it. I don't like that so I do it anyway because I believe it is important (my emergency). Every member on the board that puts up a motion thinks it is important hence they put the motion.

 

Secondly which board members said "we can not afford that"? We can afford lots, we pass it onto the members. As a board we do consider implications to the members (ie costs). And if you review our balance sheet you can see what the staff wages component is. As a growing organisation the office will continue to grow unless we can streamline processes such as registrations and licences. Electronic systems similar to Roads corporations need to be implemented so that once we are completely satisfied with a file it can be automated. Then all we need is an audit system to check a percentage of automated files per year to confirm compliance.

 

Keith I strongly urge you to run for a position on the board. We need passionate people that are prepared to work for the membership. But make sure you read up on the duties first. It's not a can do position. That leads to board failure.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

Victorian State Representative.

 

 

[John G]

This is an Email I sent to the Board tonight:

 

President and Board Members,

 

Ed, et al,

 

I met you all at the February Board meeting where I was Dave Caban's proxy. Hopefully you would have gained the impression that my main interest is ensuring that RA-Aus remains the vibrant and successful organisation that it has been over the last 30 years! I reminded the Board that this is our 30th Anniversary year and that we should be celebrating that and reminding our members of our the achievements of our pioneers and successive Boards of management that guided us through many challenges.

 

Unfortunately, due to a quagmire of Board self-imposed problems, we have seemed to have forgotten to remember the great work achieved by our predecessors. The current Board will go down in history as having ditched our constitution and proper governance in successive knee-jerk reaction to a regulator that is acting illegally and outside their own rules.

 

Not that most Board members would have had time to listen to recent proceedings in the Senate, where CASA's CEO John McCormick had to explain to the Senate why CASA had employed the Chief Pilot of Pel Air who was then allowed to have regulatory oversight of Pel Air within 2 years of leaving that organisation; against CASA's own rules and regulations! It would however have been instructive for Board members to hear CASA's CEO try to explain the lapse and the importance of why the principles of good governance exist. For RA-Aus Board members it is a salutatory reminder that good governance is "important" and should never be ignored or compromised; even when a perceived "emergency situation" exists.

 

Instead of knee jerk reactions to each and every direction from CASA, the Board should have been carefully examining why the sudden spotlight and sudden discovery of skeletons that were placed by the very same people, now pointing at the skeletons! Had I still been on the executive or a member of the Board I would have been parked on CASA's doorstep crying FOUL! when both the ex CEO of RA-Aus and Ex OPS Manager were hired by CASA to head the newly established Sports Aviation Section to oversee the operations of RA-Aus; in contravention of their own rules.

 

The resultant paralysis of the correct functioning of RA-Aus was apparent almost immediately from the ill-advised appointment of our Ex CEO and OPs Manager to positions in CASA overseeing RA-Aus. A decision against all of CASA's own governance regulations. Gentleman, you should all have been parked on CASA's doorstep and the Minister's protesting this basic breakdown of good governance.

 

Appointing an Ex-Board member that was part of the executive and had a major controlling decision in appointing himself to a high salaried position in the employ of RA-Aus is an absolute breakdown of good governance; particularly when the rest of the Board is not consulted or informed until the decision has been made. Albeit, a totally illegal decision! Gentleman good governance insists that you reverse that decision; particularly if you want to hold CASA accountable to follow their own governance procedures and address the underlying issues on why RA-Aus has been reduced to a state of dysfunction due to CASA's own misguided action in hiring disgruntled ex RA-Aus employees that have a score to settle; or if they don't, it can certainly be perceived to be so to a casual observer or a Senate inquiry.

 

Ed, in my discussions with you, you told me that you felt that you were backed into a corner by CASA and that Myles was the only one that could deliver the goods as demanded by CASA. I fully understand the position you thought you were in. As I told you then and I will tell you again; it was the absolute worst decision you could make. Wrong reason, wrong person! As I have tried to outline above, we have been tackling the problem from the wrong angle and feeling pressure when in fact we should have been fighting back. How do we fix it? First thing is to reverse the Myles appointment! The membership will never forgive you all if it is allowed to stand.

 

"I continued the Email with contact names and suggestion of folk who could develop a tailored SMS for RA-Aus."

 

 

[kaz3g]

You've previously contradicted my assessment of the RAA constitution where I concluded that clauses as written gave authority for the President to make the decision he did.

I argued that on the words that are written in the Constitution, you argued based on things which were NOT written in the Constitution, suggesting that might be what a Court would do.

 

Read what I said again, please Turbs. I explained the gaps in your argument using the written constitution and a considered interpretation of its meaning.

 

I’m conscious that our court system flourishes on the fact that in every case heard, both lawyers believe their argument will be correct, but one lawyer will be shown to be wrong.

 

No offence Turbs, but this isn't an argument between two lawyers. I hold a view that your statutory imterpretation on this is flawed just as it was when you erroneously attempted to find penalties for breaching privacy by using the "officer" provisions of the Assoc Incorp Act. You disagree... that's your right.

 

However, the day to day operations of an Association were never intended to take place under Court conditions, just the conditions which the peer members live in.

 

So I’d love to take you into VCAT, where I can stand against a lawyer and be heard, on that one.

 

 

We are still all expected to abide by the rules, Turbs. And you won't ever get to argue the issue in VCAT because it is the wrong jurisdiction.

 

However, even if you were 100% correct and the President had not complied with the unwritten Constitution, there are other more important clauses the President was bound to comply with:

 

The Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. Constitution, Clauses B4, and B5 bind him to do the following:

 

<B.4 To safeguard the interests of recreational aircraft clubs and similar bodies or any entity involved in activities connected with recreational aircraft flying in any of its branches and obtain for them such monetary or other assistance as may be possible by representations to Federal or State or any other appropriate authorities, persons or organisations.>

 

So the President had a much greater obligation, the minute he became aware of the failure of board members to carry out the duty laid down by CASA in the 2010 Handbook, and that RAA was in breach of the Deed of Agreement.

 

He had an imperative obligation under Clause B4 to protect clubs and FTF’s from losses arising from any sanctions handed down by CASA, and other more serious matters.

 

That's simply not true, Turbs. The clauses you are selectively referencing are part of the statement of purpose of the RAAus, not a constututional imperative directed at the President. They are the aspirations the whole Board should be aiming at not a licence for one of them to act alone.

 

<B.5 To make rules and regulations as necessary and permitted by law governing aspects of recreational aircraft operations in which the Members of the Association or any of them are engaged and , in particular, but without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing to make rules and regulations governing certification of aircraft the conduct and activities of Members engaged in such operations in relation to the use and control of aircraft including recreational aircraft of all types during all stages of flight and the activities of Members whilst they are at, on or in the vicinity of any area from which such aircraft are being operated, launched or handled and also in relation to the ground handling, maintaining, constructing, repairing, testing, checking and transporting of the said aircraft.>

 

When the President of the day discovered that the board members were failing to meet their board member responsibilities as set out in the 2010 handbook, and realised there was no Safety Management System in place he had an urgent obligation to make the rules and regulations.

 

Only the Board can make rules and "regulations" (in fact it can only make rules, not regulations in the sense of of a statutory rule made pursuant to a power provided in an Act). That's why CASA is "the regulator". His urgent obligation was to consult with his Board and strive to reach a suitable decision agreed to by the majority, not to go off on a frolic of his own. Even if he did think he had carte blanche it only would go to show his serious lack of understanding of the decision-making processes and the legal duty imposed on each and every Board member.

 

As you and many others say, this should have been done through the board members initially, who should have reacted with utmost speed, not just to approve the SMS project, but to ensure that a Safety Management System was developed in the form of manuals, personnel appointments, restructuring of responsible people and mirroring SMS’s throughout all areas of the Association’s responsibility.

 

That this was not done is evident by CASA’s ultimatums.

 

That a President finally recognised this and immediately acted is to be commended

 

I have no problem at all with him acting, Turbs, just with the form the action he took which was totally outside his power to do.

 

Although some people are blaming two employees for “not doing it”, if you care to read the CASA documents, at no time was this able to be delegated to employees – it was, and is the job of board members, and while CASA are not specific on many things they are very specific on this.

 

It was absolutely the responsibility of the Board as a whole to implement requirements under the Deed including the establishment of the SMS. The Board would quite rightly expect that the work of doing it would be the responibility of the CEO and they should have required a progress report on it. Of course, they had to know that it was not being done and they would have had to got past the ridiculous apartheid that existed within the Board whereby the Executive and a fe favoured members knew a lot and the rest were left in the proverbail dark.

 

The employees’ only mistake on this was not telling all board members in writing that CASA didn’t give them any option of delegating the job.

 

There is a basic difference between delegating the responsibility and delegating the job, Turbs... see above

 

I’d like to address your comment “and now the nepotistic appointment of a paid staff member.”, and described by others as “jobs for the boys”

 

At the end of every war there is always some soldier who doesn’t get the message and keeps firing at people who are no longer the enemy, this is a good example.

 

The majority who appointed Steve Tizzard did not appoint Myles.

 

I'm not describing it as a job for the boys, Turbs. I'm describing what looks to me like a Board member coming to an agreement with another Board member about his appointment to a paid position ... a very direct and blatant conflict of interest... a breach on the part of each of them, I suggest, of his duty as a fiduciary.

 

I don’t know Myles and I don’t know if he was in the CASA meeting and volunteered to step down as a board member, or whether there was a separate discussion, I don’t know whether he will be good or bad in the job, but it appears from the developments we’ve seen that he is acceptable to CASA, where we didn’t get that autonomy with aircraft registrations.

 

However, I do know strategy, and he has put himself in an very obvious, awkward position where he will gain nothing, "jobs for the boys" or otherwise.

 

We agree.

 

He has stepped down as a board member, and as a result of what has been stirred up, may have lost the opportunity to be a board member again.

 

Almost certainly

 

That’s a sacrifice FOR the members.

 

That was the risk he took when did it outside of the rules.

 

He would also have known that in taking on the job he faced a mountainous task. Many of you work day by day under SMS policies, and you know it doesn’t intrude significantly, the injuries are down, and the SMS manager has an easy time of it.

 

That is not the case for the poor devil trying to get the manuals written, and at the same time being told again and again “We don’t want all this cr$p”

 

So he would have known he was taking one for the members, would be in for a rough ride, and come September might have had it taken off him anyway.

 

Turbs, I have never denied the enormity of the task nor the quite apparent willingness of both Ed and Myles to put the Association's needs before themselves. But, using your old soldier analogy, even the most valorous squaddie doesn't go over the top into machine gun fire alone without cause. Two and a half weeks have gone by since the emergency action, we are no closer to having SMS up and running out there in the clubs and schools, and the barrage is still to come down.

 

All I have asked is that people follow the rules. Surely it's reasonable to ask that of those who are likely to be out there enforcing them in regard to others?

 

Under those circumstances Kaz, your comments, and those of the others are unwarranted and hurtful to a person who is about to give a lot of his time for the members.

 

Clearly, we disagree on this issue so I guess there is no point in me pursuing it further. I have dealt with it as a debate about the issues from the outset. It would have been good if it had continued that way.

 

kaz

[oracle1]

John G an excellent summation of CASA's shortcomings in this matter, methinks the supposed emergency was A Red Herring.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith, Can you indicate where in the minutes of meetings Steve and Ed were being voted down? I don't think a motion was ever put up. Even tell me which meeting and I will review them? I very much doubt you can. And if what you said was correct (which I do not believe it is) then you are supporting actions against governance. Lets look at that concept. I put up a motion and the majority of the board vote against it. I don't like that so I do it anyway because I believe it is important (my emergency). Every member on the board that puts up a motion thinks it is important hence they put the motion.Secondly which board members said "we can not afford that"? We can afford lots, we pass it onto the members. As a board we do consider implications to the members (ie costs). And if you review our balance sheet you can see what the staff wages component is. As a growing organisation the office will continue to grow unless we can streamline processes such as registrations and licences. Electronic systems similar to Roads corporations need to be implemented so that once we are completely satisfied with a file it can be automated. Then all we need is an audit system to check a percentage of automated files per year to confirm compliance.

 

Keith I strongly urge you to run for a position on the board. We need passionate people that are prepared to work for the membership. But make sure you read up on the duties first. It's not a can do position. That leads to board failure.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

Victorian State Representative.

Good Morning Spriteah

 

Thank you for your reply that gives me more information to work with to verify some points. I will dig deeper and ask more questions and have it verified.

 

Electronic system for rego/licence, good one, it is year 2013 not year 1913, lets push that one. Name who does not want it and we can talk to them. Change their minds.

 

Afford:- Do afford and stay on the ground or afford and go flying, simple.

 

To keep things happening, at time we must do what Ed did you do it then we must get together and fix the structures under it to keep it up and running.

 

Governance/systems/procedures we can get bogged down on them for days and if they are all taken to the letter the job can not ever be done. STUCK.

 

We have to have someone with heart and who can hold their nerve and do it. Yes we can get into a lot of trouble. The choice is trouble/shelved.

 

I do work for a large organisation:- These two wisdoms have come back to haunt me.

 

When things are not going to plan and a tad up side I would get a call and my standard reply was:-

 

" Have you verified..dit..dit....." . "I do want to here from you till you have a solution".

 

Guess what these days it is " Come down here I have verified dit dit da da..... and I have a solution".

 

People are thinking does not matter what as long as they are thinking, that is some thing to work with and build on.

 

Catch you all later and (Alpha/Alfa)

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

No they dont. But they do have a requirement for issue of the initial rating. The reason I would like to see this is not only to adress the spinning issues, but to adress the 'stalling' issues we have.Instructors that dont get near the deep stall (because they have never done it) are only able to teach mild stalls with wing drops etc. So I feel the student gets a watered down version because the Instructor is too 'afraid' to get too close to the unknown. Im not saying that we should let them spin in RAA aeroplanes, just that an instructor that knows where the limit is, and is comfortable having a student on the controls at the 'edge' will be giving a much more thorough stalling education. (IMHO)

Would somebody kindly enlighten me: Is the current excitement over the RAAus accident rate a result of stall/spin accidents? Because if it is, I have some comments/ suggestions to offer.

 

The founding president (if that's the word) of the AUF, George Markey, was adamant that proper spin training should be part of the AUF training syllabus. He remained so until his death last year. The founding head of Operations, Bill Dinsmore, was equally adamant, and wrote it into the original training syllabus. Bill is still around, and if you ask him, he'll tell you why full spin training is essential. As the founding AUF tech Officer (and also a pilot) I heartily agreed with them; it was in the PPL syllabus when I did my basic training. You can also look at the statistics of stall/spin accidents for the GFA, which insists on all two-seat gliders being certificated for spinning, and requires full spin training.

 

However, the requirement for the aircraft to be cleared for spinning was omitted from both CAO 101.55 and BCAR Section S at its initial issue (this was corrected in the subsequent issue); I do not know whether this omission extended to the Euro ultralight standard, but it may well have at that time, because I understand it was based on BCAR S. Non watered-down standards identify two levels of certification for spinning: Firstly, for aeroplanes that are placarded "Intentional spins prohibited", the requirement is that they must be shown to recover from a one-turn (or 3 second) spin (including spins with mis-use of controls) by the standard recovery technique, in no more than one additional turn (See FAR 23.221). This is required of ALL GA aeroplanes. Aeroplanes for which intentional spinning is to be allowed, must be tested for a minimum of six turns, with recovery by the standard method in not more than one and a half turns.

 

Responsible manufacturers such as Skyfox and Jabiru did test their products for the one-turn requirement, despite its omission from the design standard. This was not without its exciting moments; we learned a lot about spin parachute systems in the process, and were lucky on several occasions not to lose an aircraft and/or test pilot.

 

Testing for the one-turn spin case requires, for each available flap setting, and both left and right turn directions, and power on and power off, the following cases: Ailerons neutral; ailerons against the rudder; ailerons with the rudder. All these must be done for both forward and aft CG. In an aircraft that has a landing and a takeoff flap setting, as well as flaps retracted, this works out as 128 test cases. The aircraft must be fitted with a spin-recovery parachute system for this work, and the pilot must wear a parachute, and there must be a means to jettison the door or canopy. In ultra-light aircraft, spin testing is hazardous, because most of them can hardly be prevented from exceeding their design flight envelope during the recovery; this makes it very difficult to test them as thoroughly as one would wish.

 

Because the spin manoeuvre is hazardous, for the above reason, in ultra-light aircraft, especially aerodynamically "clean" ones, I do NOT advocate requiring it to be performed, even as only "incipient" spins, in these aircraft. However such training can be done quite safely in gliders, and that is the sensible way for RAAus to approach this matter. I am not aware of ANY certificated two-seat ultralight that is certificated for full spin training (some of the LSA ones may be).

 

The purpose of full spin training is to allow the trainee to overcome the initial disorientation (which one does after only a couple of spins), and to become familiar with the spin as a normal part of the aircraft's repertoir, to the point where one can instantly recognise the "feel" of the initial commencement of autororation, and arrest it with a momentary forward stick input, so the aircraft barely starts to turn at all. Glider pilots fly right on the edge of this condition when they are thermalling, and it becomes second nature. One can reach this point after about six flights, in a glider.

 

The resistance of an aeroplane to inadvertant stall/spin can be greatly improved by certain design features, as can its ability to recover from a full spin - but these features are noticably absent from the majority of RAA aeroplanes, many of which seem to be designed by hair stylists rather than aerodynamicists. Swept-back vertical tails are notoriously bad in this regard. One of the more difficult aspects of aircraft design is the control of the spanwise development of stalling of the wings of an aircraft - and very few designers of RAA aircraft seem to know how to do it. This makes adequate spin training essential for safety in this class of aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

You are on the money there dafydd. Stupid swept back tails belong on supersonics. Just looking at some designs without even flying them you can tell they would be no good in a spin situation. Spin training has been one of my favourite "wants". Once you are competent and not frightened of them It gives you confidence that you can recover a plane from anything PRIOR to letting it get into a spin. I agree there are probably no suitable planes for spin training in RAAus availabiltity, because they could exceed their structural design loads in the recovery. Many are not suitable for recovery from spirals either, or perhaps I should say allowing students to practice spiral recovery, because there is too little margin for error there also. Certainly making instructors do EMT is essential. I really can't see how you could confidently train pilots without that background knowledge . Nev

 

 

[oracle1]

Hear Hear. A properly trained pilot should be able to control the aircraft in any part of the envelope. I did my ab intio training in gliders and had my instructors put me into some vicious spins, didn't like it at the time but it was and is a priceless lesson.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

If you are referring to the document sent to all FTF's last Tuesday, that is a proforma shell, not an SMS. some of the single lines in that shell will need to be expanded to 5o pages before it can be referred to as an SMS.. . . .

It is not possible to reconcile your claim to CASA's threat - one of you has to be wrong.

As posted in another thread about Gavin's Resignation, the following is an extract from a very recent email from Steve Runciman:

 

"The SMS . . . is in existence in RA-Aus now and it was accepted by the board at the Sep 11 board meeting and since that board meeting it has been gathering dust, despite the best efforts of some of us to get this thing moving!"

 

Is that sufficient evidence for you to now accept my many, many, many times assertion of this fact?

 

Steve's memory is correct. I've checked the Board Minutes for Sep 2011 and it is all there.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Are you sure?

Yes refer post 540 in this thread.

 

. . . Does the "RA-Aus Safety Management System and Risk Management Manual" exist? If so, where can I get a copy?

I don't know the current status of the SMS (neither does anyone outside a select few)

RA-Aus Fyshwick Office should be able to assist you but you could ask your rep on the Board. We'd all be interested to hear what he has to say.

 

The template does not state a date by which the FTF SMS must be completed. The email delivering the template stated "Feedback and suggestions are requested to be forwarded by 15th August 2013 and will be applied to the Template as appropriate." It says nothing about a deadline for completion of the SMS.

True. But this is the right way to go about it wouldn't you agree? Get the template right by consulting the CFIs and then give them a deadline to have it operational.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As posted in another thread about Gavin's Resignation, the following is an extract from a very recent email from Steve Runciman:"The SMS . . . is in existence in RA-Aus now and it was accepted by the board at the Sep 11 board meeting and since that board meeting it has been gathering dust, despite the best efforts of some of us to get this thing moving!"

 

Is that sufficient evidence for you to now accept my many, many, many times assertion of this fact?

 

Steve's memory is correct. I've checked the Board Minutes for Sep 2011 and it is all there.

I love a comedy. The man universally condemned, all but tarred and feathered said it so its true.

Now all that remains is to produce it, give CASA a good kick up the ding, and save members and FTF's hundreds of hours.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

You have to remember that at the time the SMS was signed, I had been on the Board about 48 hours. Steve and I were still on the same side at that time. It wasn't until Tizzard grounded the Junior Flyers in direct contravention of a Board direction and SR let him off with an implausible "miscommunication" story that we started to not see eye to eye. I think the extraordinary pay rise for Tizzard was the thing that made it very hard for us to work together effectively thereafter. And supporting Tizzard again when the Insurances were allowed to expire and . . .

 

 

[Keith Page]

Good Afternoon All

 

I have been out doing some research and I have some interesting information regarding Myles and his safety knowledge.

 

He wrote the saftey system for the Queenland councils, that was fifteen years ago.

 

The other big one state manager for safety for the QEC. Does me for good enough.

 

With credentials like that who better to start the ball rolling for RAAus regarding the SMS.

 

We must have a SMS to move forward in the modern world, those of you saying we do not ---- think again.

 

I am not keen at all having consultants - they grab your money (great piles)and leave like a robber's dog after that we are left to structure what they have left behind just to get things to work some how.. no consultants please.

 

What I am hearing Steve was on to the SMS thing and he was being blocked so ED got the ball and ran it, you know to get to the try line we must run with the ball up, passing it about will not get to the try line. Remember no forward passes.

 

I will keep digging see what other information I will discover.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Regardless of who fills the Safety Manager post, please do not expect them to have a mature SMS in place by September and do not judge them harshly for failing to have a mature system in place by September. The establishment of a SMS is a large task. It's not just about writing an SMS manual, it's also about conducting a Gap Analysis, developing and implementing procedures, setting up systems, training staff, developing a proactive safety culture etc. in order for the organisation to comply with the broad policies contained within the SMS Manual.

 

At the ICAO SMS Implementation Training Course I attended, ICAO indicated that it would likely take a minimum of two years to establish a mature and effective SMS. They were right!

 

However, it was time well spent because the SMS within my current employers organisation has already reduced some potentially significant hazards that were present, but not clearly evident in the operation. Some of these more significant hazards have been either mitigated or alleviated through training while others have been addressed through amending our procedures. I can see many areas in RAAus operations where an SMS could improve safety.

 

However, it will take a fair bit of time. When September comes around, judge Miles on his progress in implementing a SMS, and not solely on the fact that a mature SMS is perhaps not in place.

 

Dave

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Keith, it is always good to work from the facts and thanks for bringing the info on Myles's experience to light. Also, I have not heard anyone argue that RA-Aus does not need a an SMS. As you would be aware, every place in Australia where work is undertaken must, by law, have a safe system of work. While you are digging into Myles's employment history you might let us know how long he had been out of work before accepting the gift of the STCC role from Ed.

 

CASA, when they wanted to set up their SMS, engaged AeroSafe. They did that because they have a very modern approach to risk assessment and safety management. I can judge their quality from my experience of sitting through a two-day Risk Assessment Workshop for RA-Aus. They were very good at what they do. They had highly qualified people and good systems for getting to a clear understanding of the risks faced by RA-Aus and how each of those risks should be managed. Unfortunately, Myles was unable to attend the Workshop.

 

I'm afraid I don't share your high regard for Myles's skills. I have seen how he writes and noted his performance as a Board Member and was heavily underwhelmed. And I notice that John Gardon is adamant that Myles would be a very poor choice for the job based on his assessment of Myles's skills and work ethic.

 

But, Myles's capability to do this job is not the issue. The issue is that he sat down with Ed and between them they came up with a plan to employ Myles. Conflict of Interest alarms should have been screaming - "Don't do it! The fact that they went through with it borders on corrupt practice. If something similar had happened in a Government department it and the AG got onto it, it could involve a trip to ICAC or the equivalent.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . When September comes around, judge Miles on his progress in implementing a SMS, and not solely on the fact that a mature SMS is perhaps not in place.

My understanding is that the Board has voted overwhelmingly NOT to employ Myles so there will be no need to judge his performance in September.

 

The Censure motion, at this stage, looks like it will not get up. Hopefully Ed accepts the verdict and gets on with the job and works within the Rules in future.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Keith, it is always good to work from the facts and thanks for bringing the info on Myles's experience to light. Also, I have not heard anyone argue that RA-Aus does not need a an SMS. As you would be aware, every place in Australia where work is undertaken must, by law, have a safe system of work. While you are digging into Myles's employment history you might let us know how long he had been out of work before accepting the gift of the STCC role from Ed.

Whether he is in work or out of it is none of your business, so back off.

 

Flyvulcan has given some indication of the massive job Myles has to do.

 

 

[John G]

Whether he is in work or out of it is none of your business, so back off.Flyvulcan has given some indication of the massive job Myles has to do.

On the contrary Turbs it is our business when Myles claimed in his Email to the Board that he had resigned his normal "day" job to take up the appointment; when in fact he had been unemployed for a number of weeks before convincing Ed to give him the job.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If that is true, yes I take it back and apologise.

 

However, if it is not true, a person's private life has been hung out to dry in front of Association members, other recreational flyers, I'd guess at at least a dozen CASA staff including ones directly responsible for RAA's future, and at least one Ministerial adviser. Not a nice thing to do.