RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, I'm surprised at you; one minute you and the group you are a part of are roundly criticising board members for failure of due process, and now we find you've taken RAA into complete anarchy by bypassing the board and contacting CASA yourself. Not only that but recommending 10,000 members do the same.How can the board members negotiate with CASA day by day with a chirping chorus ready to cut the ground out from underneath them.

 

Same goes for getting involved in the staff politics.

 

If you have a committee or a board of management, you have to allow them to do their business.

 

I know what you wanted to get across, but not everyone understands.

Turbs there is nothing that prevents any member of the public, whether RAAus member or not, contacting a CASA employee. In fact with CASA offering RPL I guess they would expect some pilots to contact them and discuss the options cause there's no one but them folks involved.

 

Negotiate.....No I didn't do that and would be given about 1mS of time if I tried. Lee's pretty switched on he knows whose who and who isn't......But I really did need to try and sort the sh!t from the clay...and there really is only a single source that we can go to for that isn't there!

 

As to 10,000 members ringing Lee...good luck with that. I would have thought it self evident that it just needs one or two that are firmly of the view that Ed's way is a fine and responsible solution to get CASA's requirements.

 

For clarity Lee made it pretty clear that politics <yawn!> is the last thing they're interested in just progress towards our obligations

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

So Andy are you suggesting politics (yawn) is out !?............Maj...

 

 

[Spriteah]

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.

Terryc,

 

What I have found is that communications within the board are difficult to say the least. Face to face meetings would fix this however costs are significant to get the board together. Not to mention board members being able to matchup at the same time. I think the best first step would be to remodel the structure to reduce the amount of board members to 7-9. That will start to help. And yes 4 meetings per year face to face trying to blend with events to reduce costs to the members.

 

The board need to focus on their core duties. Not try and manage RAA. Sensible communications and not Egos need to prevail. I am hopeful that a few new faces on the board will improve things but that might not be the case as two weeks ago I thought we were progressing well but that has come to a halt due to certain events.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

 

[Spriteah]

SpriteAH and Rhysmcc - I provided the linkage in the form of CASA's RAA board member duties, CASA's ICAO call up and the ICAO document and the Job Specification.If you want to make your own interpretations you have to live with them.

 

What is hanging over all of us is that RAA does not have a safety system in place, does not have the people on the ground auditing compliance and guiding participants, and every fatality which occurs is a potential major risk. That's the overriding urgency, but CASA are correct in what they are demanding.

Turbo, My interpretation yes. Also indicated to me that CASA supports my interpretation. With that stated when the future SMS is in place it may well require a dedicated staff member. I personally doubt it due to what I envisage the system to be and how it will function. But I have been wrong in the past and am prepared to be again some time in the future.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[Spriteah]

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?

It's time to act in consultation with CASA following correct governance practices. Not hard really. Just follow the rules and get it right. Just don't rush and panic and panic and rush and kneejerk and fix it today and hope it will all work out.

 

Jim

 

 

[Spriteah]

For those of you wanting to come up with an alternative, these things are relevant:1. CASA either applied a $60,000 sanction or threatened to apply a $60,000 sanction because, over a number of years RAA has resisted setting up an SMS and employing an SMS Manager as it is required to do under the deed of agreement. I keep hearing this but have not seen it written or confirmed by CASA. CASA have with-held money in the past until RAA satisfied their requirements.

 

So those of you suggesting I'm misquoting or who don't know what "ensure" means, should note that you are not really arguing with someone on an internet, you are arguing with CASA. Certainly the CASA documents don't say "please yourself" and the ICAO document doesn't say "if you feel like it">

 

Not only that, you have put yourselves in the precarious position of arguing against a safety item in defiance of a Safety Authority. One document I have read from CASA in relation to safety indicates concern of our governance. So I would argue that then ignoring correct governance is not the best way for the RAA to go in a attempt to appease CASA.

 

I think we can safely say, that for CASA to have applied a sanction stating a specific requirement, THEY know whether they called up the ICAO clause and or issued instructions doe their organization to employ a specific person or not.

 

You can argue with CASA, but I'd suggest that would finish up costing around a quarter of a million dollars, and at the end of it you could still be facing a series of very quick audits with the final helper of being grounded until you did comply with their directive. Turbo I'm in total agreement here!!

 

2. If RAA, through it's President responded to CASA's action by agreeing to set up an SMS and employ an SMS Manager immediately, that would constitute a contract. (You can argue whether he had the power to do so if you like) So the discussion now is leaning towards a breach of contract. As you say I can argue. I do not believe the president had the power to enter into a contract with CASA. If he does not have the power there is not contract.

 

The outcome of that is either a contractual problem, if the President, as I maintain, had the power to make that decision, or back to square one, if he didn't. i.e. CASA would be likely to apply a $60,000 sanction as the first of a series of warnings leading to groundings unless RAA complied with what the have specified which is (a) an operating SMS and (b) an SMS Manager. There is that $60K again.

 

So you need to think that through and come to your own conclusions.

 

You can certainly condemn the current board members for continuing the veil of secrecy about the CASA meeting which, if published would have sent a message out to all FTF's and pilots everywhere to smarten up their attitude to safety, but what you are facing with CASA's demands has to be met one way or another. I have been waiting for information from the CASA meeting. I was not invited. I think there was a meeting last Wednesday. No report has been given to the board as of yet.

 

Jim, for what you were suggesting, if a contract exists, and I think it does, you could go to CASA and tell them you believe you could get a better result by setting up the system first by and agreed date,and then employing the manager to go straight into an operations role by an agreed date. Turbs, you are correct. I am waiting to receive a report from the president before I approach CASA with alternative suggestions. Obviously I want the board to work as a team, follow protocol and decide democratically on a direction to deal with the current issues RAA is facing. Ie: Act as a board.

 

They may then amend their demands and that would form an amendment to the contract, but being an organization in a high risk business which has resisted compliance for years, it may be too late for alternative paths - the directive may have come from higher up. I have no doubt CASA will support any direction we choose as a board to achieve assurance.

Turbs I have responded within your post with underlined text.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So Andy are you suggesting politics (yawn) is out !?............Maj...

No i was suggesting that CASA aren't interested in it at all.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Good Morning All,

 

I have been doing some more reading and thinking.

 

I see a number of places "Aerosafe" is mentioned and it is so special that it will fix all RAAus ills.

 

With the use of "Aerosafe" comes with an edorsement and encouragement from CASA.

 

I must ask this question obviously Aerosafe is a company, ""Is this company owned by anyone within CASA or ex-CASA?"" ''What is its history?''

 

Gets one thinking.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi KeithWith all the rumour and innuendo going around I'd like to ask a favour if I may. The latest scare mongering gossip doing the rounds is that recently Myles sent a less than complimentary email about the safety compliance training position (including his role in it) to numerous parties including yourself and CASA. In the interests of hitting this latest bit of rubbish on the head could you please clarify that this didn't happen? I think we're all getting sick and tired of these unsubstantiated claims and it'd be great to clear the air on at least this one.

 

Thanks

 

Nick

Hi Nick

You seem to know every thing and have the answers, you can tell the world.

 

You know my stand, I am not into he said, I said, they said - Just go and fix the problem come back to me when you have fixed it.

 

You know most of time there is less effort to fix something than sit about arguing about it.

 

I think you should take some advice from Maj. ---- 1st *Politics 2nd*His fox and hound story. Then you may be in, the doing mode.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

No i was suggesting that CASA aren't interested in it at all.

Well if they are not interested in it and have no time for it , why should we waste so much time with it, because that's all it is, a gross waste of time...?????.....................Maj...

 

 

[drifterdriver]

al

 

Hi NickYou seem to know every thing and have the answers, you can tell the world.

You know my stand, I am not into he said, I said, they said - Just go and fix the problem come back to me when you have fixed it.

 

You know most of time there is less effort to fix something than sit about arguing about it.

 

I think you should take some advice from Maj. ---- 1st *Politics 2nd*His fox and hound story. Then you may be in, the doing mode.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

Hi Keith

 

If I knew it all then I wouldn't have to trouble you with the question. What I've heard is (in my opinion) exceedingly worrying and I thought you'd be keen to shed some light on the subject. By your response you are doing nothing to dispel the rumours and in fact are actually fuelling them. I thought, wouldn't it be in the best interests of who you appear to support for someone like yourself to clear the air and "tell the world"? If this is your idea of fixing a problem by not addressing the facts then I have difficulty following your rationale.

 

As far as Aerosafe is concerned, have you personally had any dealings with them and are you certain that there are possible conflicts of interests or is it just more gossip and unsubstantiated claims?

 

For someone who has made some strong statements recently can you actually back them up with facts? I'd be real keen to find out.

 

Nick

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi Nick

 

No gossip just a question.Had to ask the question regarding "Aerosafe".. Just to verify. Wonder why a suspicion of gossip?

 

Imagine the roar and it won't be from the zoo, if aerosafe has been discovered to have a conflict of interset.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

 

 

[terryc]

Terryc,What I have found is that communications within the board are difficult to say the least. Face to face meetings would fix this however costs are significant to get the board together. Not to mention board members being able to matchup at the same time. I think the best first step would be to remodel the structure to reduce the amount of board members to 7-9. That will start to help. And yes 4 meetings per year face to face trying to blend with events to reduce costs to the members.

 

The board need to focus on their core duties. Not try and manage RAA. Sensible communications and not Egos need to prevail. I am hopeful that a few new faces on the board will improve things but that might not be the case as two weeks ago I thought we were progressing well but that has come to a halt due to certain events.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

Thanks Jim, I agree with four meetings a year and a reduced board number as well. I think more meetings are an imperative even if the board takes time to reduce in number.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Hi NickNo gossip just a question.Had to ask the question regarding "Aerosafe".. Just to verify. Wonder why a suspicion of gossip?

Imagine the roar and it won't be from the zoo, if aerosafe has been discovered to have a conflict of interset.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

Valid point Keith re Aerosafe. Now if you'd just dispel the other rumour we can all move forward.

 

I also totally agree with your comments about reducing the board to seven Jim.

 

Nick

 

 

[Teckair]

Yes of course they could, but that would be no worse than what I suggested above, because if you cant register your aircraft and cant get a pilot's certificate the CAOs are NOT worth anything to you.We wouldn't need to be concerned about any of this IF WE WOULD JUST GET OUR ACT TOGETHER AND FOLLOW PROCESS AND DO WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. Yes I am raising my voice ... slightly

David I thought it would be worse because everything would be shut down immediately rather than progressively as registrations and licenses come up for renewal. I hope most people agree we need to get our act together.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Hi NickNo gossip just a question.Had to ask the question regarding "Aerosafe".. Just to verify. Wonder why a suspicion of gossip?

Imagine the roar and it won't be from the zoo, if aerosafe has been discovered to have a conflict of interset.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

Keith if Aerosafe were ex Casa potentially no conflict. However if Aerosafe resigned from CASA yesterday and formed to accept a contact tomorrow that would be a conflict of interest of the highest level. Very similar to what you have been vigorously defending in this thread.

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[dazza 38]

At the end of the day SOMEBODY has to grab the ball on this and run with it right now. Then we can sort out who is going to look after it permanently come September.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Keith if Aerosafe were ex Casa potentially no conflict. However if Aerosafe resigned from CASA yesterday and formed to accept a contact tomorrow that would be a conflict of interest of the highest level. Very similar to what you have been vigorously defending in this thread.Jim Tatlock.

See http://www.aerosafe.com.au/who-we-are.php

 

 

[dazza 38]

Aerosafe have also just about worked with everybody who is anybody in Aviation, by looking at their "Who they have worked for" page..

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Mmmmm....they look like a biggish company, probably expensive and do they have experience at the bottom end of things........................Maj...

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Mmmmm....they look like a biggish company, probably expensive and do they have experience at the bottom end of things........................Maj...

They may well be expensive, but when it comes to members safety, money well spent.

 

You can't expect to hire a single "STCC" and expect them to put in place a robust safety program, there's a reason so many aviation companies outsource, you just can't expect to have all the expertise in one guy (or board of directors).

 

Pay now and do it right, or keep forking out money over and over while we spend another 3 years trying to work this out.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi KeithWith all the rumour and innuendo going around I'd like to ask a favour if I may. The latest scare mongering gossip doing the rounds is that recently Myles sent a less than complimentary email about the safety compliance training position (including his role in it) to numerous parties including yourself and CASA. In the interests of hitting this latest bit of rubbish on the head could you please clarify that this didn't happen? I think we're all getting sick and tired of these unsubstantiated claims and it'd be great to clear the air on at least this one.

 

Thanks

 

Nick

Good Afternoon Nick

What you are asking --- something regarding what Myles sent out --- you are claiming which is less than complimentary.

 

As I am a Queenslander I may load the answer in the incorrect direction, because I am a bit "lets do" stuff the politics, yes I do get into trouble occasionally, I get handed a few tasks you know.

 

Just looking about my best bet for you is to ask "Spriteah -- Jim" he will be able to answer the question for you, because he has access to the letter.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

I'm a Queenslander too Keith and I've been a member for 20 something years so I get to hear a lot of rumours, most of it unsubstantiated. By your responses it looks like a straight answer won't be forthcoming from your direction. So I suppose I and others will just have to follow the line that where's there's smoke...

 

If its untrue then wouldn't it be simpler for you to say that Myles didn't send an email to you and CASA regarding the position? If he did send it then would you consider this behaviour in line with the best interests of the organisation?

 

Nick

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Stone the bluddy crows! Have you people ever read "Parkinson's Law" on the subject of Committees? You surely need to!

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Anything like Rafferty's rules Dafydd?