John G Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Turbs, I have a copy of the Email and have not posted it for the very reasons you cite!
turboplanner Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 How about the hard evidence of the unemployment?
John G Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I'll leave that up to the folks making the statement; however it shouldn't be too hard to prove, either he was employed or he wasn't.
flyvulcan Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 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. If this is the case then please accept my generic statement "When September comes around, judge the Safety Manager incumbent on his progress in implementing a SMS, and not on the fact that a mature SMS is perhaps not in place." In addition, it is not going to be easy for the FTFs to implement a SMS within their own organisation without the responsible person having some knowledge about SMSs. I know that expenditure from the RAAus coffers is strictly controlled but given the perilous position of RAAus at the moment and with the the sustainability of some of the FTFs being linked to their ability to continue their business uninterrupted, perhaps the Board could consider contracting a specialist agency to develop a generic SMS for the FTFs, to include all relevant manuals, both policies and procedures. This initiative could significantly reduce the stress and heartache on FTF providers. BTW, if I was the Safety Manager compiling a hazard register for RAAus, I would be listing the stress on FTF establishments to comply with regulatory requirements in short time frames as a potential hazard. Mitigating initiatives would include extending the timeframe, or providing support etc.. This suggested initiative would not only assist the FTFs, but would also indicate that RAAus is being proactive in supporting its members and also undertaking initiatives to bring its operation in line with CASA requirements. Dave 1 1
turboplanner Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I'll leave that up to the folks making the statement; however it shouldn't be too hard to prove, either he was employed or he wasn't. Unless I've missed a post or two somewhere, that would be you at the moment; I haven't seen anyone else say that. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that the man should be given natural justice.
John G Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Unless I've missed a post or two somewhere, that would be you at the moment; I haven't seen anyone else say that.I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that the man should be given natural justice. Turbs you must have missed a post or two. It was A/R that made the statement when you rightly jumped into Myles's defence and I simply said it was our business if Myles is claiming otherwise.
Aerochute Kev Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 The other alternative that no one has mentioned, is that Miles may have been "unemployed for several weeks" as he could have left his other job knowing at that time of the new position. If so, he could still be correct that he gave up his other day job for this one. But that doesn't make the appointment look so urgent, does it?
kaz3g Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 The other alternative that no one has mentioned, is that Miles may have been "unemployed for several weeks" as he could have left his other job knowing at that time of the new position. If so, he could still be correct that he gave up his other day job for this one. But that doesn't make the appointment look so urgent, does it? If Myles knew about the STCC job coming up weeks in advance it hardly supports the "emergency" claim used to justify ignoring all the rules, does it? Kaz
Downunder Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 "I was employed in the coal mining industry in engineering until the 5/6/13, there is no way that RA-Aus could ever come within a bulls roar of my former salary." Post 298. Page 15. This thread. 1
Keith Page Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Good morning All I am stuck here, wondering why all the anamosity, Myles has the task of getting the SMS up and running we need people with the knowledge to get this just started, I said "just started" then get it running all that is not done in five minuites. We all should be helping keep the building standing not trashing it. RAAus need the SMS and quick and now most people on this forum are dreaming up ways why it is wrong, """""stop"""" get to and make it work as I am not to keen on the alternative. ED tried.. Myles tried.. I added my little bit via this forum. As I can seen the alterative:- Administrator appointed by CASA.. Interim board appointed my CASA.. More rules appointed by CASA.. Etc. etc. appointed by CASA so the list goes on. Who wants that. Good Eh?????????????????? I do not. OR the worst case RAAus closed down completely with a fleet of planes grounded and a bunch of members yelling for blood. That will be exciting Eh???????????. I will join the angry mob. Most of this chirping (they broke the rules mob) is only coming from the "key board warriors". The others (the happy people) are out enjoying their aircraft --- If you the chirping mob get RAAus closed down this happy mob will get angry then watch out. "Angry mob vs. The key board warriors." Will be a good game for CASA to watch. What I am suggesting put the knives and hatchets away even put them in your next batch on concrete you do not need them. Get your thoughts in a positive way and get things to work instead of all this white anting. CASA is watching and noting, I have seen information with those references- one does not have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out. Regards, Keith Page 1 6 2
Head in the clouds Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 "Angry mob vs. The key board warriors." Just so that we don't end up with another giant misconception do you mean - The keyboard warriors or The key Board warriors ??? 2
David Isaac Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Just a point Keith. CASA do not have the authority to appoint anybody in the Board or employment of RA Aus Inc. The worst they can do is remove RAAus authority to register aircraft and issue pilot certificates and then appoint an administrator of the processes. This is what they have already done in terms of aircraft registrations. I am not concerned what CASA might do. I am more concerned about the viability and survival of RA Aus Inc. pivotal in that survival is the reliance on proper process. Perhaps some need reminding that the reason we are in this mess today is because of previous Executive and Board behaviours along the same lines as we see here in this stunt. So simply referring to those who are debating the issues as 'key board warriors' is hardly fair as many of us 'keyboard warriors' were directly involved in calling the February EGM and actively involved in much more than 'keyboarding' on this forum. Many are standing for current Board positions. 2
turboplanner Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Keith I agree there is an agenda from one group of people, you only have to read through this thread to see it. The President has been accused of Nepotism without any evidence to back up that claim. He has been accused of "Jobs for the boys" without any evidence of that claim. I have been branded with "associating" without any answer as to who with. All in all it's a pretty disgusting, attacking threat, very short in facts to back up the attack. However, we've come to where we've come, and I've done some thinking overnight: John G, is this a fair summary of what we were talking about last night? AR to Keith Page 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. Turbo to AR Whether he is in work or out of it is none of your business, so back off. JG to Turbo 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. Turbo How about the hard evidence of the unemployment? JG I'll leave that up to the folks making the statement; however it shouldn't be too hard to prove, either he was employed or he wasn't. If so, I agree, it is Alfa Romeo's responsibility to come up with the facts or apologise. In thinking this over, firstly in my view this would be one of those issues I would discuss in camera within the board. He had to do two things to get started on this function: Resign from the board, because we know he was a board member, and be free of any other employment. He would need to confirm that he was no longer a board member, and that he was free to work. I'm cautious enough to want to see the exact words in the email before deciding whether any statement was significant. Aerochute Kev, and Kaz That at this stage is poor speculation. The job availability would not stand up unless CASA had made it an imperative.
Spriteah Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Keith and others. I do not believe that CASA are likely to act on the RAA in the immediate future. I can assure you many on the board are attempting to gain CASA assurance the correct way (via correct governance) and CASA are well aware of that fact. Several suggestions have been put to the board and what's left of the Executive to consider a consultancy group who have experience with aviation SMS implementation and have done so with CASA support for similar organisations as ours. On the surface it would appear to be significantly cheaper using this method (a proven method) than to implement a person into a role who might or might not be able to create a quality SMS system. The consultancy course will be much quicker as they have all the basis ready to go and amend to RAA. I hope the full board seriously consider this option. At this point five of ten are supportive of this direction. Regards, Jim Tatlock 6 3
terryc Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Good morning AllI am stuck here, wondering why all the anamosity, Myles has the task of getting the SMS up and running we need people with the knowledge to get this just started, I said "just started" then get it running all that is not done in five minuites. We all should be helping keep the building standing not trashing it. RAAus need the SMS and quick and now most people on this forum are dreaming up ways why it is wrong, """""stop"""" get to and make it work as I am not to keen on the alternative. ED tried.. Myles tried.. I added my little bit via this forum. As I can seen the alterative:- Administrator appointed by CASA.. Interim board appointed my CASA.. More rules appointed by CASA.. Etc. etc. appointed by CASA so the list goes on. Who wants that. Good Eh?????????????????? I do not. OR the worst case RAAus closed down completely with a fleet of planes grounded and a bunch of members yelling for blood. That will be exciting Eh???????????. I will join the angry mob. Most of this chirping (they broke the rules mob) is only coming from the "key board warriors". The others (the happy people) are out enjoying their aircraft --- If you the chirping mob get RAAus closed down this happy mob will get angry then watch out. "Angry mob vs. The key board warriors." Will be a good game for CASA to watch. What I am suggesting put the knives and hatchets away even put them in your next batch on concrete you do not need them. Get your thoughts in a positive way and get things to work instead of all this white anting. CASA is watching and noting, I have seen information with those references- one does not have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out. Regards, Keith Page A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
terryc Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Keith and others. I do not believe that CASA are likely to act on the RAA in the immediate future. I can assure you many on the board are attempting to gain CASA assurance the correct way (via correct governance) and CASA are well aware of that fact.Several suggestions have been put to the board and what's left of the Executive to consider a consultancy group who have experience with aviation SMS implementation and have done so with CASA support for similar organisations as ours. On the surface it would appear to be significantly cheaper using this method (a proven method) than to implement a person into a role who might or might not be able to create a quality SMS system. The consultancy course will be much quicker as they have all the basis ready to go and amend to RAA. I hope the full board seriously consider this option. At this point five of ten are supportive of this direction. Regards, Jim Tatlock Thanks Jim, I hope the others are able to reason it through as you have done. Thank you also for keeping us informed. This is exactly what people have been saying about good governance in this thread, this is an example of it. What do you think of more face to face board meetings, it seems to me that your backs to the wall some what when you can't be eye ball to eye ball when discussing issues as important as this one. 1 2
turboplanner Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Several suggestions have been put to the board and what's left of the Executive to consider a consultancy group who have experience with aviation SMS implementation and have done so with CASA support for similar organisations as ours. On the surface it would appear to be significantly cheaper using this method (a proven method) than to implement a person into a role who might or might not be able to create a quality SMS system. The consultancy course will be much quicker as they have all the basis ready to go and amend to RAA. The problem with this Jim, is that the Manager position is ICAO mandatory. You could do what you are suggesting in addition to the Manager, and given the amount of work which has to be done to set the system up, and which will disappear immediately it has been bedded down, that would not be a bad idea. But if a major incident occurred (or even a minor one), without the prescribed Manager, RAA would be legally non-compliant, and that could be very costly indeed. Where the need for the dedicated person really kicks in, is ensuring and managing ongoing compliance and auditing teams and FTF's, and that's not a part time job. Going down the path you are suggesting is also similar to the shortcut of just signing off the registrations.
terryc Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 The problem with this Jim, is that the Manager position is ICAO mandatory.You could do what you are suggesting in addition to the Manager, and given the amount of work which has to be done to set the system up, and which will disappear immediately it has been bedded down, that would not be a bad idea. But if a major incident occurred (or even a minor one), without the prescribed Manager, RAA would be legally non-compliant, and that could be very costly indeed. Where the need for the dedicated person really kicks in, is ensuring and managing ongoing compliance and auditing teams and FTF's, and that's not a part time job. Going down the path you are suggesting is also similar to the shortcut of just signing off the registrations. I agree with Turbs and I thought that was a given. The Manager position doesn't need to kick in until we a a fair bit through the implementation. This gives plenty of time for proper recruitment processes. This shouldn't be a reason for increased fees we should be putting out hand out to casa for a bigger cut of the pie first.
Guest Maj Millard Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Who gives a damn wether Myles was employed, unemployed or what....none of our business really. At Old Station he indicated to me he was ready to retire. We need to get positive towards people who want to kick in and show some effort, Vs those who just want to constantly back-bite, and chatter away constantly like a malcontent pack of monkeys. TALK IS CHEAP.........but it takes money to buy whiskey !...........................Maj...
rhysmcc Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 The problem with this Jim, is that the Manager position is ICAO mandatory.You could do what you are suggesting in addition to the Manager, and given the amount of work which has to be done to set the system up, and which will disappear immediately it has been bedded down, that would not be a bad idea. But if a major incident occurred (or even a minor one), without the prescribed Manager, RAA would be legally non-compliant, and that could be very costly indeed. Where the need for the dedicated person really kicks in, is ensuring and managing ongoing compliance and auditing teams and FTF's, and that's not a part time job. Going down the path you are suggesting is also similar to the shortcut of just signing off the registrations. It was my understanding ICAO don't require a SMS Manager as such, but a manager responsible for SMS, it isn't required to be a stand alone position, and in fact the aviation company I work for with 3000 plus employees it is a General Manager (not to be confused with the CEO or Executive Manager) who oversees a range of systems/issues. It sounds like the what Jim is suggesting (and the board looking at) is a much more sound option for an organisation such as RA-AUS and something the GM or manager delegated could oversee. Just another example on why this issue should have been dealt with by the board rather then by 'executive' decision, explore all the options and have a democratic process as per the associations constitution.
REastwood Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 All I can see is an image of AlphaRomeo jumping up and down in glee yelling "I was right, I was right!" As the smoking reck of RAAus lies around his feet. Two quotes comes to mind; "Hindsight is a wonderful thing" and "If your not part of the solution then your part of the problem". Politics and ideologies are both good past-times but rarely solve problems (usually they cause them). There are still more problems, so we try and find the best solution we can in the time given. The first question I would have is "what is our time frame?" Some seem to think that CASA will never really act, some seem to think Armageddon is tomorrow, what is the truth? Is it time to act, or is it time to minutely dissect every word spoken and every decision made? 1
David Isaac Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 I think it is time to follow proper governance process and move forward in that mode. If we had done so, we would have already fully engaged the Board on this process and they would have already made a decision on appointment of a contractor or drawing up a PRD for a potential SMS manager and none of this intense debate on proper process would have occurred because we would have followed it. Profound ... I know ... forgive me please. 2
Keith Page Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 Just so that we don't end up with another giant misconception do you mean -The keyboard warriors or The key Board warriors ??? [ATTACH=full]22784[/ATTACH] You are a big boy and you can work it for yourself no need for explanation. Just use your nogin. Regards, Keith Page. 1
turboplanner Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 R It was my understanding ICAO don't require a SMS Manager as such, but a manager responsible for SMS, it isn't required to be a stand alone position, and in fact the aviation company I work for with 3000 plus employees it is a General Manager (not to be confused with the CEO or Executive Manager) who oversees a range of systems/issues.It sounds like the what Jim is suggesting (and the board looking at) is a much more sound option for an organisation such as RA-AUS and something the GM or manager delegated could oversee. Just another example on why this issue should have been dealt with by the board rather then by 'executive' decision, explore all the options and have a democratic process as per the associations constitution. Rhys, if you go back to the ICAO document I posted you won't have to say "I understand" and confuse people, you'll know exactly. It even has a Job Description. You wouldn't need this if anyone could just moonlight the job. I'd suggest the company you described is not a governing organization and would fit into the same category as an FTF ie just a reponsible person not a specific employee.
Spriteah Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 The problem with this Jim, is that the Manager position is ICAO mandatory.You could do what you are suggesting in addition to the Manager, and given the amount of work which has to be done to set the system up, and which will disappear immediately it has been bedded down, that would not be a bad idea. But if a major incident occurred (or even a minor one), without the prescribed Manager, RAA would be legally non-compliant, and that could be very costly indeed. Where the need for the dedicated person really kicks in, is ensuring and managing ongoing compliance and auditing teams and FTF's, and that's not a part time job. Going down the path you are suggesting is also similar to the shortcut of just signing off the registrations. Turbo, You do not need a stand alone manager. It needs to have a focal. It could be the GM, Ops or Tech, or board individual for that matter. Jim. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now