RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Anything like Rafferty's rules Dafydd?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality‎

 

 

[Oscar]

So, perhaps this would explain why putting the SMS into place was continually ignored, while much effort and time went into trying to block Ian Baker's membership...

 

 

[facthunter]

Obviously blocking Ian's membership had a greater PRIORITY than the safety management system implementation. Get HIM because he is annoying, ( to some), rather than get something done that has to be done. They should have to do the human factors course again. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

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...

If thats how you feel then dont let me stop you moving on to something else......oh hang on your still posting in this thread?.... Guess that means you want to be involved in the politics after all....

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Good Afternoon NickWhat 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.

For some one who is "stuff the politics" you sure have a hell of a lot to say! Its all one sided which suggests to me its all political in nature. Nothing wrong with that but don't hide behind " I'm not into politics" cause thats even more BS imho than the rest.

 

Andy

 

 

[kaz3g]

Turbs said: 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.

 

Spriteah replied: 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

 

Ed could certainly enter into a contract in fact he probably has...with both CASA and Myles. Problem he has is that theybare contracts that he personally is obligated to perform because he did not have the authority to bind RAAus.

 

A contract requires an offer, an acceptance, valuable consideration and an intention to create legal relations. It generally doesn't need to be reduced into writing (but contracts for the sale of land do).

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

If thats how you feel then dont let me stop you moving on to something else......oh hang on your still posting in this thread?.... Guess that means you want to be involved in the politics after all....Andy

No Andy, don't wish to be part of the political BS, but it's always handy to note who the main perpetrators are....generally they are the ones not putting their hands up to help get the required work done......Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Tomorrow, it will be two weeks since the SMS shell was sent out to the FTF's

 

In response to that there has been two weeks of bickering and bitching

 

RAA is non-compliant with the Deed of Agreement with CASA

 

The non-compliance with the Safety Authority couldn't be more serious - it doesn't have a safety management system.

 

The cries that 48 hours would have seen a decision approved by a majority of board members can now be seen as a fantasy.

 

A good decision was made which shoved RAA towards compliance, thousands of businesses and sporting bodies throughout Australia have handled it, there are thousands of examples to look at and see what others have done.

 

The FTF shells are very light on with real detail on what has to be done day to day, work is needed, best to get on with it.

 

 

[Chird65]

...In response to that there has been two weeks of bickering and bitching

RAA is non-compliant with the Deed of Agreement with CASA

 

The non-compliance with the Safety Authority couldn't be more serious - it doesn't have a safety management system.

 

The cries that 48 hours would have seen a decision approved by a majority of board members can now be seen as a fantasy.

 

A good decision was made which shoved RAA towards compliance, thousands of businesses and sporting bodies throughout Australia have handled it, there are thousands of examples to look at and see what others have done.

 

...

Turbs,

 

i would disagree about bickering and bitching. There has been public comment in that two weeks by members and interested parties. Some has been below standard but a lot has been well thought out. There has been no further communications from the organisation.

 

I have not seen anyone saying the FTF was not required, just its form being questioned. I have seen the need of a new permanent position questioned and I have seen this argued (That's not bickering) but I have not been convinced either way

 

If you think that the method the SMS was progressed got it any further I can see no evidence of it. Sending a draft FTF could have been done at any time. All that has been asked is comment by CFI's, this is not compliance. Have we had any evidence that it has progressed further? None that has been communicated.

 

There seems to be information available to some private members but not the majority.

 

On this forum some of the posters that I have followed have started making statements that do not align with the public statements of the organisation. i.e. "we are about to be shut down". There has been a lot of frustration and worry on this forum and even our most calm posters have fallen below their normal standard.

 

I still consider it very poor form if CASA communicated that it was about to act to affect many thousands of flyers, that the organisation would not communicate this to the membership. I note I have seen this poor form with the aircraft registration.

 

I'm still waiting for good communication but I am not hopeful anymore.

 

Chris

 

 

[turboplanner]

Without going into another definition of words and discussion of the discussion(and I agree with what you said):

 

THE TRAIN HAS NOT LEFT THE STATION!

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Well, some days back I offered the compliment to all posting here that I was very impressed by the standard of posts. Catching up tonight with what’s been posted over the last few days, I think we all need something new to argue about because we have descended to the bottom of this well and there is no light there and the air has a particular stench to it.

 

Let’s examine a few gems, the first form Turbo:

 

AR to Keith PageWhile 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 commented:

 

If so, I agree, it is Alfa Romeo's responsibility to come up with the facts or apologise.

If we examine what A/R wrote, it can readily be seen that it was a question of Keith Page and not a statement or allegation. Keith, as you might recall had said he was going off to do some more research and, in the hope of him introducing the slightest modicum of balance, I asked him to check facts that might not support his position as well as the ones that might.

So, what was I supposed to apologise for - asking a question of Keith?

 

What relevance has whether Myles was employed immediately before the time he was offered the job? Well, did not Myles propose that RA-Aus needed such a position created and recommended himself for the job? So, if Myles was gainfully employed and gave up a higher paying job to accept a lower paying job, as he has been said to have inferred, then that could be interpreted as a selfless act and thereby add to his credibility. However, if he had been out of permanent employment for some time when he came up with the suggestion for himself to be given a six figure salaried position with the organisation that he was a Board Member of then, could it not be argued that his credibility would thereby be diminished? If it was Myles who brought the issue of his employment status into the argument can a claim be reasonably made that it is a private matter?

 

Hopefully the thoughts in the previous paragraph will assist the Maj with his question:

 

Who gives a damn wether Myles was employed, unemployed or what

I’m afraid Keith Page has not produced a single piece of logical argument nor one shed of new fact. All we get is repeated statements virtually all of which are unsubstantiated allegations usually peppered with pejorative aspersions.

 

Turbo argues elegantly and is forever introducing new facts and opinions on facts. Unfortunately, it seems to me none are aimed at getting to the reality of the situation just circular arguments to back up a position, a contrary position, that was adopted very early in this discussion. Full marks for consistency but I am having real trouble trying to get past a couple of fundamental flaws. Turbo’s arguments, elegant as they are, like a flawlessly constructed house of cards sat on a shaky card table. The shaky card table takes the form of a belief that the ends justifies the means and that there was a real emergency and that only Ed had the answer and that it would be OK for all Board Members to abrogate their fiduciary duty to the people who elected them and hand Ed Carte Blanche. Having trouble swallowing all that.

 

REastwood gives us the following insight:

 

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".

If I was predicting the demise of RA-Aus (which I am not) then I’m not sure how hindsight applies.

And then there is the oft repeated words to the effect of stop telling them what they are doing wrong and help. The solution/problem conundrum. Glib but not very logical. We all have to accept here that we are swapping theories here as to what is wrong and what could be done about it. Fact is none of us have any power to change anything other than by casting our vote or even engaging in politics to the extent of campaigning for people who we believe CAN fix the issues introduced by the Old Boys Club of Middleton, Reid, Breitkreutz ably supported by recent additions to that prestigious Club in the form of Runciman and Herring.

 

We, all of us, banging away on our keyboards here are engaged in an interesting intellectual exercise that could almost be summed up as “they orta” or, “if I was the boss . . .” So, please, don’t tell me that I can reduce RA-Aus to a “smoking reck” by posting a few words on RecFlying. The people who are doing a very good job of that are the people you (excepting Turbo) elected to GOVERN RA-Aus.

 

So, I served as a Board Member, proposed and had accepted the creation of the Constitution Review Committee and was the Chair until Runciman canned it. I worked with the Admin Manager and wrote a paper for the Board proposing the replacement of virtually all the obsolete, non-standard and defective office equipment including the PABX and computers. I campaigned for more than three years to get the Board to accept the principle that the Constitution and the Rules embodied therein are not a procedure guide, not optional but an instruction on how to operate RA-Aus from the people who OWN RA-Aus, no, not Middo and Herring but the ordinary members like you (excepting Turbo) and me. Come to think of it, is that a C172 lurking behind you? Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn't that mean I should be saying except Turbo and you?

 

I drafted and had accepted by more than 75% of the members who voted, four amendments to the Constitution in an attempt to make the Board accountable to the members. I worked with a few other concerned members to obtain more than three hundred signatures to requisition a General Meeting so the Board could come out from under their cone of their silence and explain to the ordinary members why RA-Aus was in a shambolic state and why we didn't find out about it until it was virtually too late to do anything about it.

 

So, Mr Eastwood, what have you done and for that matter what has Keith Page done other than mock those who have been busting a gut for years to rein in the excesses of a Board with no respect for the constitution or good governance? People who have just put RA-Aus through the worst year of its existence.

 

rhysmcc asked of Turbo:

 

Where do you get this information? Requests by members for a copy of the Deed of Agreement (which from earlier posts indicate your not a current member) have been met with a firm no, based on "confidentaly" clauses.

Rhys, I would refer you to the Constitution:

“36. Inspection of books.

 

The records, books and other documents of the Association shall be open to inspection at a place in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour.”

 

This Rule means exactly what it says. An ordinary member is entitled to inspect any document that RA-Aus has. There is NOTHING that is confidential including the Deed of Agreement. You may not be allowed to copy it or disclose its contents to others but you are perfectly entitled to look at it.

 

Maj asked:

 

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

Aerosafe facilitated the Risk Assurance Workshop for RA-Aus Board and CEO in February 2012. I found them to be very professional. They would have been very cheap because CASA offered to pay for them to present the workshop but RA-Aus took so long to get around to arranging it that, by then, the offer had lapsed and RA-Aus picked up the tab.

The post that finished me off came from the master of clever arguing, Turbs himself:

 

The cries that 48 hours would have seen a decision approved by a majority of board members can now be seen as a fantasy.

Or, if you turn the telescope around the right way, the alleged emergency that was supposed to see the end of life as we know it has not materialised. If Ed’s proposal had made sense to anyone and not been about jobs for the boys it could easily have been dealt with in less than 48 hours. As it is at least half the Board is vehemently opposed to Ed’s unilateral action and an overwhelming majority is opposed to the jobs for the boys appointment of Myles.

Enough. Somebody needs to rule a line under this thread and move on to something that produces a useful discussion.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Defend yourself by all means.

 

THE TRAIN HAS NOT LEFT THE STATION

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

As i understand it from discussions i had yesterday with a number of board members they are all waiting for Ed to provide a report to them. Nothing has been provided for over a week. It would seem the train hasnt left the station because no one knows where the driver is! Perhaps a case of my way or the highway!

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well, some days back I offered the compliment to all posting here that I was very impressed by the standard of posts. Catching up tonight with what’s been posted over the last few days, I think we all need something new to argue about because we have descended to the bottom of this well and there is no light there and the air has a particular stench to it.Let’s examine a few gems, the first form Turbo:

Turbo commented:

 

If we examine what A/R wrote, it can readily be seen that it was a question of Keith Page and not a statement or allegation. Keith, as you might recall had said he was going off to do some more research and, in the hope of him introducing the slightest modicum of balance, I asked him to check facts that might not support his position as well as the ones that might.

 

So, what was I supposed to apologise for - asking a question of Keith?

 

What relevance has whether Myles was employed immediately before the time he was offered the job? Well, did not Myles propose that RA-Aus needed such a position created and recommended himself for the job? So, if Myles was gainfully employed and gave up a higher paying job to accept a lower paying job, as he has been said to have inferred, then that could be interpreted as a selfless act and thereby add to his credibility. However, if he had been out of permanent employment for some time when he came up with the suggestion for himself to be given a six figure salaried position with the organisation that he was a Board Member of then, could it not be argued that his credibility would thereby be diminished? If it was Myles who brought the issue of his employment status into the argument can a claim be reasonably made that it is a private matter?

 

Hopefully the thoughts in the previous paragraph will assist the Maj with his question:

 

I’m afraid Keith Page has not produced a single piece of logical argument nor one shed of new fact. All we get is repeated statements virtually all of which are unsubstantiated allegations usually peppered with pejorative aspersions.

 

Turbo argues elegantly and is forever introducing new facts and opinions on facts. Unfortunately, it seems to me none are aimed at getting to the reality of the situation just circular arguments to back up a position, a contrary position, that was adopted very early in this discussion. Full marks for consistency but I am having real trouble trying rkshop but RA-Aus took so long to get around to arranging it that, by then, the offer had lapsed and RA-Aus picked up the tab.

 

Enough. Somebody needs to rule a line under this thread and move on to something that produces a useful discussion.

Last aparagraph :...........Couldn't agree more....hardly worth commenting on anymore !!....................Maj...

 

 

[REastwood]

If I was predicting the demise of RA-Aus (which I am not) then I’m not sure how hindsight applies.

So, please, don’t tell me that I can reduce RA-Aus to a “smoking reck” by posting a few words on RecFlying.

Obviously you did not comprehend my analogy, I was making the point that IF RAAus went down, for whatever reason, as long as "correct governance" was followed you would be happy. While I, and I suspect many others, would be upset that someone didn't take extraordinary action to fix the problem.

 

The point I was trying to make was one the Dafydd made re: Parkinson's Law and the pettiness of politics/administration, maybe another analogy might help...

 

You are standing on a railway track with a time table in your hand, you are safe in the knowledge that no train will come because the timetable says so. As you hear a distant rumble on the tracks you check the timetable again, read the Transport Authorities constitution, ring a few other people to get their opinion and put in a call to the Transport Authority board members. By this time the train is only a few seconds away. Suddenly someone grabs you and pulls you off the track as the train speeds by. You dust yourself off then loudly berate the person who grabbed you for not following procedure, not informing you of their decision to grab you and proceed to press charges of assault.

 

Obviously the train should not have been on the track, something went wrong, but that does not stop the situation from being real. It is really annoying when people in meetings and on boards miss the point entirely and "discuss, comment and debate" ad nauseam and do not act, sometimes with whatever is required, to avoid disaster. So again I see the main piece of information that has not been verified one way or another is "how much time did RAAus have?". Another question may be "Did the board give their full support to the President and do they still, or have they reneged?"

 

Come to think of it, is that a C172 lurking behind you? Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn't that mean I should be saying except Turbo and you?

Yep, certainly is a C172, does that mean if a fly a GA aircraft I can't be a member of RAAus? Does the fact I also have a PPL with a CIR mean I am not worthy or simply not able to fly a Recreational Aircraft? Do you think that everybody with a PPL or higher should get out of RAAus?

 

So, Mr Eastwood, what have you done and for that matter what has Keith Page done other than mock those who have been busting a gut for years to rein in the excesses of a Board with no respect for the constitution or good governance? People who have just put RA-Aus through the worst year of its existence.

What I have done is support those elected members who are there to ensure that my flying privileges are maintained. Maybe if there were more board members/government/councillors fighting for the people and their rights and privileges and actually doing something rather than busting their gut to rein in perceived or real excesses and disrespect for constitutions and other acts of political point scoring we would all be in a better place.

Regards,

 

Richard Eastwood (I use my real name because I believe in what I say and do not hide from the fact)

 

 

[Captain]

Who gives a damn wether Myles was employed, unemployed or what....none of our business really.

I disagree Madge, as this is surely material to the issue being discussed here.

 

I have seen an email that I believe was from Myles where he claimed that he was making something like $130/hr in his present job and it gave the impression that he was making a substantial sacrifice in taking the RAA job, and being altruistic in the process.

 

Big difference if he was out of work & was part of the triumvirate that decided that he should be parachuted in to take a paid position with RAA without interviews or due process being followed.

 

The self-sacrifice line may have just been part of a pitch for a Life Membership down the track, but I do think that if normal and due process is being trampled, then the members should be able to be aware of the true position, whatever it may be.

 

I have seen emails from Myles that took a long time to decipher and I have more problem with his selection for this job than I do for Ed's sense of urgency in reacting to a personal request from the CASA to get this cracking.

 

A further development today is that I understand that Ed has now demanded absolute support on this issue and a 70% majority approval from the Board to do whatever he feels necessary in the future (although unspecified), or Ed will walk on Thursday. That's democracy & good governance at it's finest, and it looks to me like our esteemed leaders are out of control again.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Obviously you did not comprehend my analogy, I was making the point that IF RAAus went down, for whatever reason, as long as "correct governance" was followed you would be happy.

Richard, I understood exactly what you meant. Where understanding deserts me is why you could think I would be happy to have RA-Aus in a smoldering ruin when I have put in a monumental amount of time, my money and emotional energy into having it be successful. Why would I be happy to have my Tecnam Sierra rusting away in a shed while still paying for a hangar and insurances?

 

It is not good governance that will bring RA-Aus down but bad governance that has brought RA-Aus to its knees and that bad governance has been perpetrated by the people you are supporting to go on and do more.

 

So again I see the main piece of information that has not been verified one way or another is "how much time did RAAus have?"

As hindsight can show us all, a great deal more time than Ed claimed.

 

Another question may be "Did the board give their full support to the President and do they still, or have they reneged?"

There does seem to be a 24 carat misunderstanding here that will, however, be clarified this week as Ed is again DEMANDING that at least 7 out of 10 Board Members abrogate their fiduciary duty to the people who elected them and hand ED their vote, no questions asked. It is the poorest understanding of Good Governance for Ed to even ask for such a thing. Any Board Member that gives it to him is automatically in breach of their fiduciary duty.

 

Yep, certainly is a C172, does that mean if a fly a GA aircraft I can't be a member of RAAus? Does the fact I also have a PPL with a CIR mean I am not worthy or simply not able to fly a Recreational Aircraft? Do you think that everybody with a PPL or higher should get out of RAAus

No, No and No. In fact, RA-Aus is much richer for having people with the level of training and skills that you have achieved. The hallmark of Recreational Aviation I have personally found is that it is a friendly place and there is no looking down your nose at anyone. There is an issue of whether you had an axe to grind as a person with something at stake (like me) or if you were more like Turbo enjoying the verbal jousting as a mental exercise. If RA-Aus goes down I cease flying and lose a great deal of money on my aircraft. With your qualifications and a C172 you are perhaps more independent of RA-Aus. Regardless of any of that you have a perfect right to express an opinion and bring facts and logic to the debate and we are all better off for your having done that and I thank you for taking the time and trouble for doing so. Doesn't mean I will agree with you but that is not the issue.

 

What I have done is support those elected members who are there to ensure that my flying privileges are maintained. Maybe if there were more board members/government/councillors fighting for the people and their rights and privileges and actually doing something rather than busting their gut to rein in perceived or real excesses and disrespect for constitutions and other acts of political point scoring we would all be in a better place.

Quoting my record of what have I done with RA-Aus was not intended as blowing my own trumpet but was in answer to the suggestion that we just criticise don't do anything positive. Unfortunately, encouraging people who have acted unilaterally in defiance of the Board is exactly what got RA-Aus into this mess. And, no, it is not necessary to do so again to get us out of it. What Ed did was lazy. He was not prepared to do the hard yards to persuade people to his point of view as you need to do in a democracy. Ed was not born right he has to earn it the same as the rest of us. Nobody elected him to be the one-man dictator of RA-Aus.

On the question of posting under your own name or an alias . . . I have posted on here both ways at different times. There are advantages and disadvantages of both. An advantage of the nom de plume is that what I write is fairly judged on what I write not who is writing it. Rather than dismiss an argument on the basis that "yeah, you would say that . . . " The argument put rises and falls on the quality of what you write. I quite like that idea. If you'd like to know more send me a PM and I'll tell you. But then I'd have to . . .

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is an issue of whether you had an axe to grind as a person with something at stake (like me) or if you were more like Turbo enjoying the verbal jousting as a mental exercise.

I find that, very offensive. I've invested considerable time to try to protect my future - you don't have a monopoly on that.

 

One person who deserves some relief from unfounded, factless comments from various people is Myles.

 

And Ed also, does not deserve manufactured titles and derogatory remarks not backed up by facts.

 

In terms of urgency, I understand the SMS was supposed to be operating by December 12 last year - six months ago.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi Turbo

 

Ditto Ditto Ditto to your post 643..

 

I see Alfa has taken to writing novels on this thread.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Well Keith at least he answers reasonable questions albeit somewhat loooongwindedly.

 

 

[robinsm]

this thread is getting exceptionally boring and is going in circles. If you really want to help- the organisation survive, stop trying to play "I am better than you" and criticising everyone. We have elected these people to govern the organisation, so let them govern. If you guys are so bl...dy good, then why have you not put your hands up to assist and run for office.

 

I agree we have some problems but instead of drowning the situation in fertilizer, how about stepping back and letting our elected reps try and do something.

 

I personally joined this organisation to allow me to fly my ultralight aircraft. I dont want a pseudo GA organisation, I dont want to fly a pseodo GA aircraft and compete with 747's in controlled airspace. I just want to enjoy my flying. I wish you guys would get back to what the term "recreational flying" means.

 

I am over this sh..t, either put up and help, or shut up and let the executive do their job.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Spot on robinism........plus it makes extremely boring reading.....and Ian is trying to sell this site right now ?, good luck Ian..!!...................Maj...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ok

 

nothing more from me on this issue....

 

Andy

 

BTW did put up hand re insurance did spend a heap of time and effort with another member.........

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Did you stick your hand up as a board member Andy ??...................Maj...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Not this year because Michael Monk has already done so and he and I are pretty aligned on what we want (I nominated him). Because of the way our voting system works in practise rather than design, putting up 2 candidates against an incumbent rather than just 1 works to the incumbents advantage.

 

I have already said previously I will stand next year if the issues aren't resolved.

 

Its not that I don't want to this year, just that it would be counter productive (and Michael Monk on paper has the better credentials of us both)

 

Andy