RAAus SMS. How to best go about it?

[nong]

I

 

Or you could try having a look around the parking area for any rubbish, building materials potholes etc which might cause injury to visitors or their children, where appropriate buy a $10 speed sign for the entrance, have a couple of warning signs put up (which you are currently obligated to do by the State Worksafe body anyway.You may be obligated to have handicapped toilets now, or maybe since you are not offering a service which a person who needs a handicapped toilet can participate in (unless you offer handicapped controls) you may be exempted from that.

 

If you operate at night, you will require lighting in the car park (but you do now under Worksafe.)

 

You could contribute to fixing the current Human Factors syllabus, which in my opinion was written by an introverted diver, and put some real meat into the course, which you know will save lives.

 

Not much cost in all that; it's just a matter of how to approach your risks, which you may be doing very well now, in which case you may have to do very little.

 

But if you don't want to put your neck on the block for a guaranteed claim against you for negligence, a safety system is a safety net, your proof of duty of care.

Good reply there, Turbs. Did you know that school operators are now in possession of the RAAus SMS Template, a document which specifies a four person safety committee. I want the wider membership to understand that the cost will be reflected in higher training rates. Do the members wish to pay for the four person team that each school will, it seems, need? Are they prepared to finance gold plated, fully paperworked, schools? Really? Members will have to pay for the compliance burden and, no matter how you cut it, the financial bar will be lifted for those wishing to fly. More people will be excluded, than are, under the current circumstances.

RAAus is now in the full grip of the BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVE. Considering this, all members will pay more for the privilege of wading through more paper.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The four committee people can be four student/pilot volunteers if there isn't a club.

 

If you've written the SMS, they can only audit to the SMS, so that should be liveable.

 

If in their discussions they stray into wanting extra things which would not be practical - the argument you just put to us about cost can be put to them.

 

However, I should warn you that having been through 30 years of this in the transport industry our cries about being put out of business always fell on the deaf ears of DIT, which is also the department which controls your destiny.

 

And they never backed off. When they introduced Australian Design Rule 35 to Australia, based on a combination of European and US regulations, both International Harvester Australia Limited, and Chrysler Australia Limited argued that they could not comply with it using 16" PBR brakes, and would have to get out of the medium size D Line range of trucks in the case of International, and the Dodge truck range in the case of Chrysler, unless the predecessor of DIT gave them a break.

 

It didn't, and both large truck ranges, where models used to sell for about $5,000.00 were closed down, and 16" brake group availability was lost to Australian Manufacturing.

 

Yes, people will have to pay more to cover the costs, yes less people will be able to afford to fly.

 

I wouldn't pull CASA on on this one - it's not the people you might deal with day by day, but higher up in the parent Department of Infrastructure and Transport ready with a big foot to crush an insect.

 

 

[old man emu]

The problem with the application of legal requirements to various industries is that those charged with oversighting them have not been instructed on the correct application of discretion.

 

You can see this ability to apply discretion in the comparison of a cop in the US, and a traditional UK constable.

 

The cop cannot grasp the concept of discretion. For a cop, it's a matter of yes/no (I was almost going to write black or white). They don't have the ability to see the grey. It's all push, shove and handcuff, without helping to solve the problem.

 

On the other hand, the UK constable has been taught how to apply discretion. Those constables carry limited weaponry, so they have to be able to control situations by talking and listening. Sure they make arrests, but how often do you see them depicted using deadly force and whacking on the handcuffs on detainees who aren't resisting arrest?

 

If the people charged with oversighting the myriad of laws in our world were told to be assistants in correcting errors rather than just punishing the person who made the error, then the objectives set by the legal requirement would be more universally met.

 

OME

 

 

[bilby54]

You could contribute to fixing the current Human Factors syllabus, which in my opinion was written by an introverted diver, and put some real meat into the course, which you know will save lives.

Not much cost in all that; it's just a matter of how to approach your risks, which you may be doing very well now, in which case you may have to do very little.

The diver thing always sticks in my neck when teaching it as there are so many things more apropriate and I really wonder why RAA has to have so many knee jerk reactions and make things so complicated. I remember reviewing an SMS from a major gas company that had amongst other wonderous things in the definitions section "PO Box", that's when I lost interest!

 

We should ignore the trivial rubbish that is in the SMS template and concentrate on what affects safety at our own little patch of dirt as a starting point.

 

 

[terryc]

IGood reply there, Turbs. Did you know that school operators are now in possession of the RAAus SMS Template, a document which specifies a four person safety committee. I want the wider membership to understand that the cost will be reflected in higher training rates. Do the members wish to pay for the four person team that each school will, it seems, need? Are they prepared to finance gold plated, fully paperworked, schools? Really? Members will have to pay for the compliance burden and, no matter how you cut it, the financial bar will be lifted for those wishing to fly. More people will be excluded, than are, under the current circumstances.

 

RAAus is now in the full grip of the BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVE. Considering this, all members will pay more for the privilege of wading through more paper.

Or won't bother which is more likely.

 

 

[facthunter]

Put up signs saying "stop it, or you will go blind". Nev

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . It is the inefficiency of management that has drawn RAAus into the mire it wallows in today.

It could well have been classed as highly efficient management . . . put bugger all effort in and get the same output. That's close to 100% efficiency.

 

 

[nong]

The attempt by RAAus to force schools to have their own SMSs was abandoned on September the 9th.

 

Our National Safety Manager made the announcement via e-mail to CFIs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So Nong, you now have to either do your own, or carry the additional risk implication of not having one.

 

 

[Camel]

as Poteroo said " Why stop at the exams? The rationale for most of the paperwork needs scrutiny - RAAus is fast becoming GA!, ". He is 100% correct! Ultralight flying was meant to be simple and inexpensive. The existence of ultralight flying has created light weight 2 seat flying machines that out perform GA planes, if you want all the privileges and luxuries of GA then go there and get ready with the cost. If you haven't owned a GA plane you have no idea of cost. Keep RAA simple, do not try over regulate or complicate or it will be lost for ever. I have to deal with GA pilots who think RAA planes are toys, I can assure you these pilots are not competent or safe, with poor airmanship. Learn to fly an ultralight well and you can fly anything if you can understand the instructions.

 

Does this explain it better. I think most FTF would be happy with this, and is very responsible of RAA.

 

What RAA said to FTF is,

 

"The Flight Training Facilities themselves will not be required or expected to have and implement their own individual SMS however the requirements for risk management still remain. It is on this basis that RA-Aus will continue to implement and improve its organisational SMS."

 

 

[turboplanner]

YOU have the duty of care for your operations, so when someone is lying there with a broken back in the area you are responsible for one of the questions his lawyer is likely to ask is for a copy of your SMS. If RAA want to back away then the question arises who was administering that flight?

 

 

[Teckair]

The attempt by RAAus to force schools to have their own SMSs was abandoned on September the 9th.Our National Safety Manager made the announcement via e-mail to CFIs.

I thought it was CASA trying to enforce the SMS for each school not RAAus.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The attachment details are what I found in June last year.

 

The first link is to CASA's Sport Pilot hand book which shows what CASA mandated in May 2010.

 

How RAA go about complying with this and whether anyone from CASA said don't worry about isn't going to cost me any sleep.

 

When the accident occurs what structure is in place and who was responsible or ought to have been responsible, might cost others a considerable amount.

 

Note that the handbook also spelled out the duties of the members of the board of management.

 

WX046.pdf

 

WX046.pdf

 

WX046.pdf

[nong]

So dramatic, turbs.

 

Anyone serious about their aviation is already assessing and managing the risk in everything they do.

 

There is no need for the "Johnny come lately" impost of a SMS paper work jungle in a small scale operation.

 

Excess and fanatical risk aversion is a characteristic of those with impaired judgement.

 

Risk is inherent. CFIs already manage it pretty efficiently and with a high success rate.

 

Living in fear of litigation can be stifling. I choose not to.

 

Flying training at Wagga has been fatality free for fifty nine years. It's fair to say that risk has been managed.....without the paper work jungle.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Proving that the lack of an SMS in place contributed to a injury would be interesting, legally. That could open up a whole new class of liability.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Camel

 

Is over regulated, is over complicated, will never be as it was, ever again. RAAus is modern GA, CASA just haven't caught up to that fact yet.

 

True, learn to fly an (real) ultralight well and you can fly any fixed wing well. IE, if you can start it you can fly (steal) it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You three can bleat and squeal all you like, the good thing about the present system is that it's between you and the Plaintiff's lawyers. When someone is lying in the ground and you are judged to have been on control, what's that got to do with the test of us?

 

 

[nong]

No bleating and squealing here.

 

In fact, it is you who is carrying on like a pork chop.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No bleating and squealing here.In fact, it is you who is carrying on like a pork chop.

I changed my operations three decades ago, I'm very relaxed with the law as it is now, and haven't found it hard to comply with.

 

 

[facthunter]

It always seems to me that we are experiencing a shovelling of the responsibility down the line from those who are in a better position to form rules and procedures than we are. If they don't have the knowledge they can obtain it by request and surveys etc and employ the experts to write the words. Isn't that what they have always done?. They would have to vet our procedures, and approve or disapprove their use, if they were not effective, or they would be negligent, would they not? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

It always seems to me that we are experiencing a shovelling of the responsibility down the line from those who are in a better position to form rules and procedures than we are.

I can remember flying along and thinking it was crazy that I was restricted from flying below 500 feet for safety purposes, but this new group of agitators could fly anywhere they liked AWAY from and airfield as long as they flew BELOW 300 feet. Didn't make any sense to me at all, but then government departments began dumping risky activities. The changes meant the governments were getting out of activities where they might have liabilities, and where the cost of discharging duty of care would be endless.

 

So the responsibilities belonged to those involved, and the governments in general had no responsibility any more because they didn't do it.

 

Aviation was a little more complicated because there was an intermediary, CASA.

 

Apart from sport, whole Industries became self administering.

 

The intent was definitely to disengage from risky activities where people could offload liability on to the government.

 

For example, when you were registering a car or truck which might not be exactly right, you just fronted up with the vehicle, and if the inspector signed it off, then even though you knew it was dodgy, the government had to foot the liability bill.

 

So they allowed dealers to register vehicles themselves, and guess who footed the bill for a dodgy vehicle then?

 

If they don't have the knowledge they can obtain it by request and surveys etc and employ the experts to write the words. Isn't that what they have always done?. They would have to vet our procedures, and approve or disapprove their use, if they were not effective, or they would be negligent, would they not? Nev

Given what I've just said, don't look for this to happen anytime soon, because that would mean re-assuming liability for their advice.

 

If they vetted our procedures they would be responsible if they approved them, whereas now, we are responsible.

 

If they approved any procedures or disapproved any procedures, they would be responsible.

 

You are correct in saying that if they did those things and they stuffed up they could be found negligent, so you can see why they would avoid doing this at all costs.

 

So we are where we wanted to be in the '70's and '80's - flying cheaper aircraft, and building our own, but it's up to us to come up with safeguards like benchmarks and standards.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Haven't seen mention of anyone touching base with Katie Jenkins on what may be the latest in this area. Just a lot of ill- informed bleating to no effect.

 

It's Katie's area of responsibility so she will have the latest facts on the matter.

 

Additionally the SMS requirement is something CASA has Imposed on us , however it is agreed that the RAAus being a mature organization should have a suitable system in place for members anyway, hence Katie's position.

 

Cheers .............Maj.....

 

 

[Teckair]

Just a lot of ill- informed bleating to no effect.

So true.