RA-Aus organisational restructure

[Pete Greed]

I agree PMc.........Could work both ways. The board could test its agenda with the membership and the regions could contribute from there own experiences, and all at minimum cost. Just a matter of being organised at both a regional and central level. More likely folk will to travel (fly) to naturally occurring locations/venues than ones based on artificial state boundaries.

 

Pete

 

 

[Oscar]

I think that if one takes all the information swirling around in the three main threads: this one, the STCC one, and Problems, the picture that emerges is worrying, but instructive.

 

To me there is a very clear message, that the incoming Board in September faces a serious amount of work to re-furbish RAA management to a situation where it can continue to effectively support the basic aims of the members: flying in acceptably 'safe' aircraft, within operational parameters that make that flying useful to them (i.e. not so restricted that flying is little more than having a view of a patch of ground from a slightly elevated vantage point) at a cost that is not prohibitive.

 

To me, a most telling comment coming from the February Emergency General Meeting was that current RAA management resembles far too much that of a rather benign local sporting club. Sure, we have a Magazine that would not be out of place as in-flight entertainment on an up-market airline, but beyond that the performance of RAA management over too many years has failed fairly miserably to provide the essential level of professionalism that the environment in which we exist demands. Since RAA has quite evidently failed to meet the bar on its SMS, technical standards compliance and financial control matters, one has to wonder if there is anything important that hasn't been neglected?

 

The incoming Board may well ( in my opinion does) have to face the task of very probably overseeing its own demise in its current format. The scope of overhaul of RAA management necessary has gone way beyond tinkering at the edges. Nothing less than the development of an appropriate management structure plus appropriate systems that meet a) the demands placed on and b) the objectives set for RAA will suffice.

 

One would think that the identification of both of these elements would be easy - and so it should. The selection of the best mechanisms to achieve them will require expertise and the will to change.

 

At this point, one ought to examine the information contained in one the seminal work on military incompetence (and recognise that these are not specifically limited to the military!): On the Psychology of Military Incompetence by Dr. Norman F. Dixon. Any of these ring bells?:

 

... common characteristics of military incompetence, for example:• A fundamental conservatism and clinging to outworn tradition, as well as an inability to profit from past experience.

 

• A tendency to reject, suppress or ignore information which is unpalatable or conflicts with pre-conceptions.

 

• A tendency to under-estimate the enemy and over-estimate the capabilities of one ’ s own side.

 

• An undue readiness to find scapegoats and suppress news about military setbacks.

 

• Indecisiveness and a general abdication from the role of a leader.

One of the major skills necessary in a manager is the ability to recognise good advice, sift out bad advice and devise ways to implement good advice so that it becomes good practice. The new Board cannot be expected to handle the mass of information that will have to be accumulated in order to re-shape RAA - but within our membership there MUST be people who can assist, or at least people who know people who can do that.

 

The good ship RAA is drifting before the wind onto the jagged coast, and at this time it is necessary for all the passengers to help row like hell and stop squabbling about the positioning of the deckchairs. We need a Board that can ensure the rowing is coordinated, timely and above all effective.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Oscar: your analogy of military incompetence would have bells ringing across Australia. Many, I am sure, would recognise the same failings in their own local Clubs, and again, many have devised ways to make the changes necessary to successfully operate their enterprises. The knowledge to do this is out there.

 

The challenge for the incoming RAAus Board is to recognise that the culture that exists within RAAus, came from an era that is significantly different to that of today, and if the new members of the board continue to be influenced by those who support failed governance and management practices of the past, then we are in for a most difficult time.

 

Clearly the old board, not as individuals but collectively, were in denial. The make up of the board was skewed by practicing instructors and dare I say it, a military culture. Refresh the culture by engaging with the diverse community that make up the recreational aviation movement nation-wide, and many of the issues that now plague our organisation will dissipate. The question is: "Who will lead the charge from within"?

 

This forum provides one of the few opportunities to gather together the sort of disparate thinking required to make good decisions. From the extreme thinking of some to the practical contributions of others, consensus is often reached. Even a bit of verbal biff should not challenge the politically correct overmuch.

 

However my problem with many on the forum is that while they are keen to enter the fray on operational matters, governance is not such a sexy a topic. And yet that is where it all starts. Beating up on the board is totally counter-productive, they need our support and we need to find a way to provide it. The issues are now out in the open and it is now time to change tact and move to a new and positive approach to rebuilding the organisation. Any suggestion?

 

Pete

 

 

[pmccarthy]

PG there are still influential posters on this forum arguing that we should keep it simple (like it once was), that CASA are the enemy/ problem and that the members should all be involved in every decision. To move forward and establish good governance we have to somehow prevail over these people. I don't know how many there are in the broader membership but they have to be outvoted on the subject of restructuring, so that a new board, chairman and CEO can get on with rebuilding. In my experience this can only happen if you have a current chairman (president?) who throws his efforts into making this happen. In other words, change needs a champion and will not happen of itself democratically.

 

 

[terryc]

I don't know what forum you read [ pmccarthy] but from my point of view this one is across the board a very informative, well reasoned and forward thinking with a strong push for change. The only point of debate is how to go about it, who would lead it, and is it too late to salvage what we have and just make some changes to it. It's the poor performance of the board over a couple of years that has brought about the secrecy and lack of communication Nobody want's to communicate their own failings. So for starters this needs to change. The way we vote for our reps who in a lot of cases we don't even know them, this needs to change. The board interfering in management this needs to change. The board not knowing their proper role also needs to change. People who think they have something to offer without analyzing what it is they bring to the table, this needs to change. Six monthly meetings is absolute rubbish, how can a board operate without forming a bond of unity which can't happen with twice yearly meetings. The executive is no longer required to operate as it does and needs a re-think. I can go on and on. If the board operated as it should I don't believe we would be in this mess at all, to the contrary we could be an example of excellence under this model. Having said that maybe to achieve all this it might be easier to change our operations completely.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........ The issues are now out in the open .........Pete

I'd like to hope that is true, but without any internal audit capability today I think that such a claim is a leap of faith that I'm not prepared to make.

 

KeithPage as much as said, SR and Ed had the board disagreeing with their approach to the SMS and so there was an emergency........( here "(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." to circumvent control processes.

 

Doesn't sound like we are all on the same page yet to me.......To get better we need to stop catching more forms of sickness and I don't see any signs that we are in recovery yet.

 

Maybe I'm still a glass half empty sort of guy. If so we need some glass half full people. I think the longer you have been shouting all is not well with RAAus, the more it looks half empty instead of half full

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

However my problem with many on the forum is that while they are keen to enter the fray on operational matters, governance is not such a sexy a topic. And yet that is where it all starts. Beating up on the board is totally counter-productive, they need our support and we need to find a way to provide it. The issues are now out in the open and it is now time to change tact and move to a new and positive approach to rebuilding the organisation. Any suggestion?

Pete

Ok, you have put the acid on me and now it's time to move towards something constructive - even if that serves only to focus on the actions. I don't pretend to be a font of all wisdom (very, very far from it), but maybe we can all contribute and help the new Board to progress by demonstrating that there is some will behind them for the changes that will be necessary. What I suggest below is intended as a framework for discussion, for points to be teased out.. and I recognise, as a sailor, that your use of the term 'tact' rather than 'tack' is probably one of the more serendipitous keyboard mis-alignments that could happen! Tact is not something of which I have often been accused..

 

Before I start, two aphorisms have sprung to mind. These are:

 

'If you want a job done quickly and well, give it to a busy person'; and

 

'The only reward one gets from digging a ditch better than anybody else, is a bigger shovel'

 

The people we need on the Board are exactly the people who are high-achievers in their personal life, with skills that are in constant demand and as a consequence, a high level of demand for their time. As RAA members, we cannot ask of them to be prepared to abandon their own personal life for the greater good indefinitely; we need to appreciate that just like us, they'd like to have the time to just go flying, see their family while their kids don't have to have a photo of Dad or Mum on the wall as a reminder/aid to recognition (order of gender here on the basis of alphabetical precedence, not appreciation of capabilities!) and continue with their career. Managing RAA is NOT a social club, where good old boys get together for a chin-wag and swapping stories over a glass of red and a steak.

 

I see the incoming Board as primarily serving the role of agents of change, who can deliver that change and then look forward to being able to enjoy the benefits thereof - not slaves to RAA's continued existence. They have to be given the opportunity to get in there, fix things, and get out (or continue, if they so desire) with the reasonable expectation that what they have achieved will endure . That requires a level of support from the membership that may well include a financial contribution - a levy, perhaps, so that progress can be achieved. Let me throw in a suggestion here: think of the cost of just ONE 100-hourly undertaken by a LAME to meet CASA requirement to keep flying if RAA were to fold. Multiply that by how many aircraft owners in RAA?. I'd say it's a damn good investment.

 

OK, now to more nitty-gritty.

 

I'd like to see the new Board identify the critical areas of responsibility for RAA and devise a structure and define the capability of systems that will address these. That will require close examination of the spectrum of RAA operations, but I'll hazard a rather uninformed guess: it breaks down to Training and Safety, Technical Compliance, Financial Management and Corporate Management (including adherence to the requirements for an Incorporated Association etc.). These need to be refined by establishment of an order of precedence: by way of example, let me say categorically that the democratic idea of regional representation is NOT as important as ensuring that Technical Compliance with the national standards for airworthiness is achieved.

 

The incoming Board needs to be able to operate with maximum efficiency - and that means the establishment of a system of communication that does not require them to waste time in unnecessary face-to-face meetings, given the geographical size of Australia. It is absolutely possible to use telecommunications to conduct 'meetings'; I would make it a responsibility of the General Manager to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are provided so that the Board can operate largely as a disbursed body. with formal geographically-centric meetings needed only to provide compliance with any contingent legislation/statutory requirements. Travel is wasted time and cost.

 

Once the strategic properties are determined, a call needs to go out to members who may be able to contribute to the development of mechanisms (systems) to address those priorities. I'll put my hand up to the analysis and specification of IT-based systems for technical compliance for instance. If no expertise can be found within the membership for a specific area, then the task of calling for and selecting of appropriate consultants can be handled by the General Manager, to be endorsed by the appropriate members of the Board.

 

Once the general shape of what RAA needs to do in regard to compliance with the external requirements placed on it is established, the Board needs to examine the Constitution to see what changes need to be made to facilitate it happening. That will require a presentation to the members to drive whatever changes are necessary through.

 

In electing a new Board this September, members need to consider that they choose someone who can deliver on the necessities. No, I am absolutely NOT standing for the Board: been there, done that in other organisations, have too much to do now in my life to be coerced. But, (and let other members of RAA consider this): if we don't as an organisation meet the requirements placed upon us, we will find our flying only possible under a regime we did not want and rules we do not endorse.

 

We need a new Board to be the A-team. This is survival stuff now. Think about it.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

From long experience, this board will have to meet monthly for at least 12 months and probably two years to resolve the current issues. Then maybe bi-monthly. Face to face meetings are essential, at least half the meetings must be face to face. Potential directors must be willing to meet that schedule.

 

 

[DWF]

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

 

Charles Darwin

 

The environment in which RA-Aus operates has changed significantly.

 

We need a governance structure and a Board that can respond to the changes in order to survive.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Go to basics: What is the raison d'etre of RAAus? To represent the membership? To allow democratic decision-making via a system of proportional representation by elected representatives? To promote recreational flying? To provide a venue for advertising?

 

Don't kid yourselves: RAAus exists in order to satisfy the conditions set by CASA for RAAus to administer CAO 95.55, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON. These conditions are set out in various documents and have aspects of airworthiness, registration, training and liccncing, etc.; these documents are the principle rules by which RAA must conduct itself. They override all other considerations, because unless RAAus performs in this regard, CASA will shut it down.

 

In order to do that it has set up a corporate structure which brings in a raft of other requirements, and also a number of ways of going about its business that allow it to collect monies from and on behalf of its membership. However these are subsidiary to its real reason for existence.

 

It seems to me that the thing has gone off the rails because the persons actually running the show have insufficient understanding of its true relationship with CASA. There has been, for far too long, far too much preoccupation with froth & bubble issues, with zilch comprehension of what it's really all about. If you do not get to grips with the basics - and you can do so by reading the regulations from which RAAus aeroplanes and pilots are exempt, and then seeing how RAAus has tried to find alternative paths (and WHY it has done so), you haven't a hope. Stop waffling about management principles and start learning the basics.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Dafydd

 

CASA gives us around $110k per year. Keeping them happy is, as you say, essential. Alone however it does not assure success. Managing the remainder of the $2m+ of revenue and associated costs is still a fairly serious endeavour. In fact I suggest that like 2 part epoxy failing to provide either part will result in failure....

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

DafyddCASA gives us around $110k per year. Keeping them happy is, as you say, essential. Alone however it does not assure success. Managing the remainder of the $2m+ of revenue and associated costs is still a fairly serious endeavour. In fact I suggest that like 2 part epoxy failing to provide either part will result in failure....

 

Andy

Andy, there are many ways of winning a war - but one certain way to lose it. Failing to meet CASA's requirements is the one certain way.

 

 

[Oscar]

'Keeping CASA happy' is really rather a simplistic way of stating the priorities for RAA. Unless there were to be a significant change in federal legislation that removed the entire responsibility for the operation of certain classes of aviation ( e.g. us!) outside of CASA's purview, it will remain the authority charged with 'safety' of aviation and aviation-related activities. While there are far too many instances of CASA utilising the 'safety' argument to justify the intrusion of its influence into areas that have, at the most generous appreciation, little or no effect on safety (see also: 'empire-building'), the fact remains that whilst ever people shout at 'the government' to 'do something' about whatever particular issue has enraged them, if aviation is the source of the complaint, CASA is the authority expected to do that 'something'.

 

Hence, a significant proportion of the rules, regulations etc. that CASA imposes, it does so in response to pressure applied to it (or in anticipation of pressure being applied to it.) The delegation by CASA of certain functions to Sport Aviation bodies such as RAA, GFA etc. is really a simple concept: CASA is saying: 'here's what has to be done, we pass it over to you to do it.' That does NOT mean that CASA is relinquishing the authority to set the rules (indeed it cannot actually DO that), but that is passing on the responsibility for adhering to them to a secondary party.

 

Short of achieving a change in legislation that specifically takes the operation of RAA-class aircraft out of CASA's responsibility (and good luck with that, especially in the current climate where 'ultralights' are very much over-represented in the media for all the worst-possible reasons), we are stuck with adherence to CASA's mandate. That is, as has been pointed out, the NECESSARY part of RAA's existence: to provide an organisation to discharge the delegated responsibilities. The rest of the format of RAA's existence - the governance structure, the financial arrangements etc. - are mechanisms we choose in order to be able to undertake the discharge of those responsibilities.

 

We do not have to, for instance, publish a magazine, or hold a NATFLY, or even have an HQ premises. We do not have to adopt any specific organisational form with contingent rules for its operation, although common sense says one is a prerequisite for being able to discharge the responsibilities that RAA has chosen to take on itself. So the analogy to 2-part epoxy, where each part is of equal importance, is really not quite correct - in our case, the horse is firmly ahead of the cart.

 

If the delegation to undertake certain activities were to be removed from RAA, we would be no more than effectively a national aero club. That is why compliance with CASA's requirements is the primary concern we have. Many aspects of the way that one can operate one's RAA-class aircraft have been forged over a considerable period of time ( e.g. the entire maintenance regime), and serious consideration needs to be given to what effect the loss of, or serious changes to, these matters would cause individual members. To those who are somewhat per-occupied with governance etc. matters, I would say this: when the chips are down (and they are falling like monsoon rain at the moment), what do you place as your priority: being able to continue to operate your RAA-class aircraft generally within the type of operational environment you now have, or securing a more perfect organisation (whatever that might entail?)

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Go to basics: What is the raison d'etre of RAAus? To represent the membership? To allow democratic decision-making via a system of proportional representation by elected representatives? To promote recreational flying? To provide a venue for advertising?Don't kid yourselves: RAAus exists in order to satisfy the conditions set by CASA for RAAus to administer CAO 95.55, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON. These conditions are set out in various documents and have aspects of airworthiness, registration, training and liccncing, etc.; these documents are the principle rules by which RAA must conduct itself. They override all other considerations, because unless RAAus performs in this regard, CASA will shut it down.

 

In order to do that it has set up a corporate structure which brings in a raft of other requirements, and also a number of ways of going about its business that allow it to collect monies from and on behalf of its membership. However these are subsidiary to its real reason for existence.

 

It seems to me that the thing has gone off the rails because the persons actually running the show have insufficient understanding of its true relationship with CASA. There has been, for far too long, far too much preoccupation with froth & bubble issues, with zilch comprehension of what it's really all about. If you do not get to grips with the basics - and you can do so by reading the regulations from which RAAus aeroplanes and pilots are exempt, and then seeing how RAAus has tried to find alternative paths (and WHY it has done so), you haven't a hope. Stop waffling about management principles and start learning the basics.

Dafydd: The invitation to self-regulate recreational aviation in Australia was always going to have conditions of compliance attached. Those conditions were known and accepted by the Board of RAAus but unfortunately both RAAus governance and management were not up to speed. It could be argued that the old committee of management model of merging committee members with operations was mostly to blame. If our governance and management systems had been consistent with contemporary good practice then we would not be having this debate. We would not only be complying with CASA's Deed of Agreement but would be contributing to the dialogue that shapes the future of recreational flying in Australia. There is a political dimension to the current situation and if we are to engage at that level we need to be clear and accurate in what is said and written. Andy said his glass was half full at this time....we need to be in charge of the vessel that will top up his glass and chart a way forward. That is the challenge for us all.

 

Pete

 

 

[terryc]

'Keeping CASA happy' is really rather a simplistic way of stating the priorities for RAA. Unless there were to be a significant change in federal legislation that removed the entire responsibility for the operation of certain classes of aviation ( e.g. us!) outside of CASA's purview, it will remain the authority charged with 'safety' of aviation and aviation-related activities. While there are far too many instances of CASA utilising the 'safety' argument to justify the intrusion of its influence into areas that have, at the most generous appreciation, little or no effect on safety (see also: 'empire-building'), the fact remains that whilst ever people shout at 'the government' to 'do something' about whatever particular issue has enraged them, if aviation is the source of the complaint, CASA is the authority expected to do that 'something'.Hence, a significant proportion of the rules, regulations etc. that CASA imposes, it does so in response to pressure applied to it (or in anticipation of pressure being applied to it.) The delegation by CASA of certain functions to Sport Aviation bodies such as RAA, GFA etc. is really a simple concept: CASA is saying: 'here's what has to be done, we pass it over to you to do it.' That does NOT mean that CASA is relinquishing the authority to set the rules (indeed it cannot actually DO that), but that is passing on the responsibility for adhering to them to a secondary party.

 

Short of achieving a change in legislation that specifically takes the operation of RAA-class aircraft out of CASA's responsibility (and good luck with that, especially in the current climate where 'ultralights' are very much over-represented in the media for all the worst-possible reasons), we are stuck with adherence to CASA's mandate. That is, as has been pointed out, the NECESSARY part of RAA's existence: to provide an organisation to discharge the delegated responsibilities. The rest of the format of RAA's existence - the governance structure, the financial arrangements etc. - are mechanisms we choose in order to be able to undertake the discharge of those responsibilities.

 

We do not have to, for instance, publish a magazine, or hold a NATFLY, or even have an HQ premises. We do not have to adopt any specific organisational form with contingent rules for its operation, although common sense says one is a prerequisite for being able to discharge the responsibilities that RAA has chosen to take on itself. So the analogy to 2-part epoxy, where each part is of equal importance, is really not quite correct - in our case, the horse is firmly ahead of the cart.

 

If the delegation to undertake certain activities were to be removed from RAA, we would be no more than effectively a national aero club. That is why compliance with CASA's requirements is the primary concern we have. Many aspects of the way that one can operate one's RAA-class aircraft have been forged over a considerable period of time ( e.g. the entire maintenance regime), and serious consideration needs to be given to what effect the loss of, or serious changes to, these matters would cause individual members. To those who are somewhat per-occupied with governance etc. matters, I would say this: when the chips are down (and they are falling like monsoon rain at the moment), what do you place as your priority: being able to continue to operate your RAA-class aircraft generally within the type of operational environment you now have, or securing a more perfect organisation (whatever that might entail?)

Well written and I agree with most of what you have said but I think you have missed the point entirely with regards to my position in particular and the governance position in general. We are all aware that the top issue at the moment is as you say our compliance but aside from this is Ed's lack of due process in achieving his intentions and the failure of Ed to give any regard to his promises at the Feb meeting and his fellow board members. My main objection is the idea put forward in this and other threads that due process doesn't matter in this instance because of the urgency. It's the failure of the board in keeping to due process that created this mess. I Have made the point before that Ed was expecting to get some flack from the members and this is obvious from the letter he posted on the Raa website. So do we like Ed decide not to worry about due process in this instance because it suits us, I suggest not. A censure motion by some members of the board is quite appropriate given their stated positions and it should be accepted by Ed knowing as he does he was stepping outside of his authority. This does two things, first that Ed shows by his acceptance of censure that he does respect due process and reminds others of it's requirements.

 

I would be the last person wanting Ed's head on a plate and maybe would have done the same thing if I was a member of the board [no I wouldn't] BUT I certainly would not be offended if I then came under censure and I would certainly be saying I would NEVER do that again. Something I was taught as a child was to accept your punishment like a man.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Dafydd: The invitation to self-regulate recreational aviation in Australia was always going to have conditions of compliance attached. Those conditions were known and accepted by the Board of RAAus but unfortunately both RAAus governance and management were not up to speed. It could be argued that the old committee of management model of merging committee members with operations was mostly to blame. If our governance and management systems had been consistent with contemporary good practice then we would not be having this debate. We would not only be complying with CASA's Deed of Agreement but would be contributing to the dialogue that shapes the future of recreational flying in Australia. There is a political dimension to the current situation and if we are to engage at that level we need to be clear and accurate in what is said and written. Andy said his glass was half full at this time....we need to be in charge of the vessel that will top up his glass and chart a way forward. That is the challenge for us all.Pete

Schlimazel, do you not see that the time for this drifted past about seven years ago? By all means, start to fix it after the September AGM - but it is long past time talking about reorganising the Dept. of Supply so the Quartermaster can issue a cork; what it needs RIGHT NOW is a finger in the dyke.

 

 

[Oscar]

Terry - I'm not in any way attempting to deny that failing to adhere to the governance structure that is in place is not a failure to act according to the rules of the organisation.

 

In fact, I'd suggest that once this mess is sorted (if we still have an RAA left!) we SHOULD have a governance structure in place that directly not just supports but indeed helps to guarantee adherence to the administrative standards imposed on us. If that can be achieved, then ensuring compliance with the governance rules will be an extremely important part of our operation.

 

In uncomplicated terms: CASA says: 'this is what you have to do in regard to compliance (for aircraft operation). RAA establishes the appropriate system(s) to do those things - and underpins that with: 'and this is the organisational structure that ensures the operation and maintenance of those systems'. Part of that organisational structure needs, I believe, to sheet home responsibility for oversight of the aspects of compliance with our responsibilities, and a competent and responsible Board is quite probably where that should reside in the first instance (though it is not the ONLY possible structure).

 

However, it's clearly not a case of 'get the Board (or governance) of RAA right and the rest will follow', it's rather more a case of 'get mechanisms for performing the basic requirements on RAA sorted and the Board/governance needs to follow'. That is why we need, I am convinced, a Board that has the skills and the will to direct the compliance system development AND look to aligning the governance structure to those systems - evolving RAA, for want of a better term.

 

 

[dodo]

Dafydd and others,

 

I don't disagree with the focus on compliance with what is effectively a critical contract, but I would point out that there is more than one way for RA-Aus to effect it's own demise. While a contract is important, the existence of RA is under ACT legislation, with which we are legally obliged to comply. So if RA-Aus set itself up as an Incorporated Association, it had better behave like one.

 

(We were not in compliance on a couple of issues at one point - to the extent some very grumpy members were apparently threatening to -or actually- reporting RA to the ACT Dept Justice. I personally doubt that the issues were serious enough to get anything happening, if indeed it was more than empty threats, but don't think we can do what we like without consequences).

 

Likewise, if some of the issues arising over the last year result in serious legal action, that could sink us as well. If some very aggrieved aircraft owner sues and wins... then if I was a board member, I would not want to be in a position where it looked like I had been ignoring all except CASA compliance.

 

Obviously, CASA compliance is the biggest risk at the moment, but don't think we can ignore all other obligations - and governance is one of those that may put you in, or keep you out of jail -if bad things happen,

 

dodo

 

 

[Oscar]

Dodo: your points are all extremely valid; however, I think it is important to recognise that whatever form of organisation the RAA uses in order to be able to provide the services it MUST handle for members is (somewhat) optional. It could, for instance, perhaps become a Limited Company that merely provides such services at cost - in effect, outsourcing the paperwork elements for owners and pilots, somewhat akin to the way an Accountancy is used to do one's book-keeping and tax returns.

 

No matter what form the organisation has, there will be rules pertaining to that form that must be observed, and there are almost always penalties for not adhering to those rules. Perhaps what is required now is a serious re-think about how RAA needs to operate and examination of what might well be the 'least worst' form of organisation to undertake that operation - and that could turn out to be exactly what is now in place, but run properly. I have no particular expertise in that area nor any axe to grind / agenda to follow, but it's pretty damn obvious that when an organisation like the RAA fails to meet its obvious obligations (and things like the exasperating failure to produce an SMS and appropriate structure for it, the inordinate delay in revising the Operations Manual etc. stand out like the proverbial dog's bollocks) things have gone very awry. One should never throw out the baby with the bathwater, of course, but at the moment the bathwater is looking dangerously poisonous and the baby is in a perilous situation.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Schlimazel, do you not see that the time for this drifted past about seven years ago? By all means, start to fix it after the September AGM - but it is long past time talking about reorganising the Dept. of Supply so the Quartermaster can issue a cork; what it needs RIGHT NOW is a finger in the dyke.

Yeah but mate...........whose finger? Theirs or ours?

 

Pete

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Dafydd

 

We can all agree the time for change was in the past, but unfortunately people like you who obviously saw it then weren't telling the rest of us! In fact as is so often said the vast majority of members are probably still unaware of where we are at today, getting their only RAAus related info from the magazine.....

 

I looked up the term "Schlimazel" because it wasn't a term I'd come across before, it would seem to be a pretty extreme word for this discussion.......How would you change the world in a day given that we are merely inept......and as we saw from Feb the 9th any attempt to do so via proxy's will be countered by Middo as he did in a totally at odds to the legislation ....with no consequences......because the vast majority of members know nothing and trust Middo????

 

Andy

 

 

[Pete Greed]

No matter what form the organisation has, there will be rules pertaining to that form that must be observed, and there are almost always penalties for not adhering to those rules. Perhaps what is required now is a serious re-think about how RAA needs to operate and examination of what might well be the 'least worst' form of organisation to undertake that operation - and that could turn out to be exactly what is now in place, but run properly.

Oscar, you are right......the current structure could work but not with the confusion created by the Chair, Executive and some Board members taking on management roles/duties. We rarely hear what the General Manager/CEO is doing because the position has been usurped/overshadowed by the Chair and Executive. Total confusion, total chaos, still happening and no-one is accountable.

 

Pete

[damkia]

What is needed desperately is an internal audit mechanism of the systems within the RA-Aus to alert early to any issues, rather that relying on CASA to wield the big stick with an external audit as has been happening.

 

I am not suggesting that the CASA audits are not required, simply that RA-Aus should be looking to have a more introspective look at their performance benchmarks.

 

 

[Oscar]

One of the major problems that has snowballed with regard to compliance, has been the failure of the systems to be effectively self-auditing. A proper business process management system(s) are designed so that the rules pertaining to their operation are built in, and the handling of routine matters is greatly simplified, leaving human intelligence to handle the exceptions rather than being swamped by the processing load. By way of a crude (but real) example: if entering into a financial obligation requires the approval of someone with the necessary level of delegation, that officer's specific approval must be entered on the system before the order can be issued. Thus, two things are achieved: compliance with the business rule and an audit trail of authorisation.

 

At a more sophisticated level, but for the same general process: in (federal) government organisations, the Dept. of Finance has a vast set of rules that must be followed for financial matters. Any Department setting up an automated system to handle such things as payments, must (or certainly USED to, when I was in the APS) have its proposed system audited by the Auditor-General's staff (who have/had a group specifically for this task) before it can be implemented. If it fails to contain mechanisms to ensure compliance with DoF rules, then it isn't allowed to be implemented until it does.

 

Yes, this means that such systems have a great deal of 'box-ticking' necessary. That is why dealing with government systems can sometimes be utterly frustrating because the systems do not have any 'wriggle-room', and sometimes that lack of wriggle-room makes it transparently obvious that anybody with common-sense could see that in THIS case, the rule is damn silly. The fault is, very often, not that of the system nor the operator, but the rules themselves.

 

On a note of caution: setting up a good business process management system is not something that one hands to a web-site builder; it requires a great deal of analysis and specification of how it has to operate. The best programmer in the world cannot produce a good system unless given a highly-accurate specification any more than the best brick-layer in the world cannot produce a great house without the plans.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

DafyddWe can all agree the time for change was in the past, but unfortunately people like you who obviously saw it then weren't telling the rest of us! In fact as is so often said the vast majority of members are probably still unaware of where we are at today, getting their only RAAus related info from the magazine.....

 

I looked up the term "Schlimazel" because it wasn't a term I'd come across before, it would seem to be a pretty extreme word for this discussion.......How would you change the world in a day given that we are merely inept......and as we saw from Feb the 9th any attempt to do so via proxy's will be countered by Middo as he did in a totally at odds to the legislation way....with no consequences......because the vast majority of members no nothing and trust Middo????

 

Andy

Andy, please excuse my exasperation/frustration. I could not tell people back then, firstly because I was not into internet blogging back then, and anyway who was going to listen? Did such a website as this exist back then? More recently, I have been bound by legal confidentiality. The term "schlimazel" is, I think, though perhaps somewhat unkind, not altogether unjustified if you take it as applying to the great majority of RAA membership - just as you have described. I used it in an attempt to jolt some consciousness of the real nature of the situation into the discussion. You people are in a slippery-dip, and you do not seem to be able to recognise this. You have to "change the World in a day" if RAA is to survive. I don't see how you can possibly manage to do so.

 

It seems pretty clear that the RAA organisation is so encumbered by its corporate structure that there is little liklihood that it can move fast enough to prevent CASA from pulling the rug out from under. You should bear in mind that one of the main objectives of the review of the Australian civil aviation regulations that was started in 1996 by Minister John Sharp (and which is still ongoing, after a fashion), was to eliminate "regulation by exemption" - largely as a result of Dick Smith's booklet "Four years in the aviation hall of doom". Also it sought to get rid of the third-tier of regulations that is constituted by the Civil Aviation Orders, by pulling them back into the Regulations.

 

CAO 95.55 is both "regulation by exemption" AND part of that third tier. So CASA is just waiting patiently for RAA to make it completely clear to the politicians that it is utterly incapable of doing its job (and a liability to CASA, to boot), so it can get rid of the liability, the element of "regulation by exemption" AND another of the CAOs that it has been trying to replace since 1996 - and RAA is doing exactly that as nicely as anybody could desire. This is the sort of situation one finds in a Pratchett novel; it would be highly amusing if it were fantasy . . .

 

RAAus has been given incredible latitude by CASA to get its house in order; it has proven to be utterly inept and so ensnarled in self-imposed procedure that I am amazed at CASA's forbearance to date. Carol Smith's case has brought all this to light - and the RAA Executive must have been aware of the implications of the evidence at least two years ago - but did they do anything to address the fundamental issues? No, it seems they were not sufficiently intelligent to even comprehend the message it contained - or maybe they thought that doing anything about it would constitute an admission of guilt? (And don't shoot the messenger; just be thankful that there have not been several more deaths from overweight operations of aircraft invalidly registered by RAAus; Carol has done a great public service, at considerable cost and great personal pain, by causing the rot to be brought to light before things got even worse)

 

I put considerable effort into the original set-up of the AUF; and I'm sad to see what is happening to it now. But it simply emphasizes to me the quotation that "when men gather together in a common cause, it is a symptom of mediocrity".

 

It may be possible to fix RAA (tho I cannot see how, short of winding it up and handing its assets - if any - along to RAA Mk II, if in fact there was sufficient benefit to be had from doing so - which I doubt). I have previously outlined the alternative - and the maintenance issue of that alternative could very probably be resolved along the lines of what the GFA does.

 

George Markey did not start the AUF by consensus; he did so by sheer personal force. He'd not be turning over in his grave at what is happening now, he'd be rolling on the floor, laughing.