Quality Management System (QMS) for RAAus

[flyvulcan]

While there is much discussion going on about the implementation of a SMS within RAAus and also about the organisational structure as a whole, I feel that it is relevant to discuss the incorporation of a Quality Management System (QMS) into the organisation.

 

With an effective internal audit program in place, the deficiencies within our system could be identified and addressed, well before they are identified by an external agency such as CASA.

 

A good QMS will look closely at our organisations system including policies, procedures and processes to evaluate their compliance, relevance, efficiency and outcomes. The QMS also has a process to ensure that rectification of deficiencies is implemented and that a successful resolution has been achieved.

 

I suggest that our organisation needs to have such a system in place and I suggest that a dedicated Quality Manager be appointed to implement an effective QMS as soon as possible within RAAus. With all the changes that will be taking place within RAAus in the near future, it will be beneficial to have an internal system that will be checking that all the new policies, procedures and processes are not only compliant with regulatory and statutory requirements, but that effectiveness and efficiency are also considered.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're a brave man Dave!

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Where's the parapet when you need it?

 

Seriously, there are many contributors to this forum who are passionate about flying their aircraft and we need an organisation that works. This is just a suggested initiative to try to help the organisation during a time where help is needed.

 

 

[damkia]

ISO 9001 and ISO 19011 are the two relevant standards.

 

Again, too big to cover here...

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Agreed. We don't need to discuss the relevant standards here, only the principal of the system and its relevance to RAAus.

 

Perhaps, as a bit of a poll, if readers of this thread agree that incorporating a QMS with a dedicated Quality Manager would be beneficial to the new structure of RAAus, click on the "Agree" icon for this post.

 

If people do not feel that the expense of a dedicated Quality Manager would be justified, they could air their opinion in response.

 

As a postscript, I feel that the QM should be a dedicated position because a) there is a lot of work to be done in setting up and maintaining a QMS and b) being dedicated to Quality, the incumbent will have no conflict of interest.

 

 

[old man emu]

Dave is quite correct in what he says. An organisation without a Quality Management System is like a ship without a rudder, just drifting along at the whim of the winds and currents.

 

A QMS is not a big bogie man. As a matter of fact, I've just finished writing an Environmental Management System for a number of clients I have on Bankstown and Camden Airports. The system I have written follows an International Standard, and the QMS for RAAus would follow AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems - Requirements.

 

I've been following all the conversation about the management of RAAus and it sticks out like a "Remove before Flying" streamer that there never have been any systemic management procedures employed by the RAAus, or if they exist, they have never been followed.

 

Is it hard to write a suitable Quality Management System document? NO!! Given half a day I could have one ready for viewing. The really big thing about a QMS is that procedures have to be developed to set out how different activities will be carried out. This becomes the Procedures Manual, and that manual is used as the basis for auditing the organization's performance against its QMS.

 

I'd say that it has been the lack of internal auditing and management review that has let the RAAus get itself into the hole it is in.

 

Old Man Emu

 

Certified Management Systems Lead Auditor.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well you blokes better write it because I think a lot of people are going to be very busy very shortly writing a workable SMS to underpin the safety standard.

 

 

[old man emu]

As a postscript, I feel that the QM should be a dedicated position becausea) there is a lot of work to be done in setting up and maintaining a QMS and,

b) being dedicated to Quality, the incumbent will have no conflict of interest.

The work is in setting up the Procedures Manual. There's a lot of background research to do, but it's not impossible.

 

The first thing that an organization needs is a commitment from its governors to support the QMS. After that, they can give responsibility to a nominated member of staff to carry out internal audits. To ensure no conflicts of interest, the organization just has to appoint an independent audit to go through the place about once a year as a double check.

 

OME

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Turbs, we hear what you're saying!

 

However, how will we know that we have a compliant and effective SMS? Sure, there is an element of Quality Assurance in a SMS, but the SMS as a whole would be assessed by the Quality System.

 

With the RAAus coffers being as full as they are at the moment, I believe that some budget expenditure to get the ship back on an even keel as soon as possible would be money well spent.

 

Using correct process, let's recruit a suitable person who has the knowledge, experience and motivation to get a QMS up and running, including drafting the QMS manual and also relevant Procedures Manuals as soon as possible.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

?.. the organization just has to appoint an independent audit to go through the place about once a year as a double check.OME

Spot on OME. I fully support with this initiative.

 

 

[old man emu]

Well you turkeys better write it because I think a lot of people are going to be very busy very shortly writing a workable SMS to underpin the safety standard.

Turboplanner,

 

I take offence at your use of the word 'turkeys'. And I'm not being comical here. You could have made you comment just as well by using a neutral term such as "blokes", 'fellows' or even 'members'.

 

In regard to a Safety Management System, this falls under the umbrella of the QMS. A proper QMS is a modular system that has modules for WH&S, Financial practices, Human Resources, etc, etc. In a proper system an SMS would follow the format of all the other modules.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[old man emu]

With the RAAus coffers being as full as they are at the moment, I believe that some budget expenditure to get the ship back on an even keel as soon as possible would be money well spent.

Be careful not to employ a company that has big overheads. Supporting the overheads is where it is going to cost money.

 

OME

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes I apologise OME, I was looking at the avatar at the time; it should have been blokes.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Be careful not to employ a company that has big overheads. Supporting the overheads is where it is going to cost money.OME

Again, I agree with your sentiment. Big consultant companies, even small ones can be quite expensive.

 

A suitably qualified and experienced individual, employed full time by RAAus as the Quality Manager could establish the system in a fairly short time and on a known salaried budget for RAAus.

 

Showing such a commitment to quality would probably also be viewed positively by CASA.

 

 

[old man emu]

Yes I apologise OME, I was looking at the avatar at the time; it should have been blokes.

Apology accepted.

 

OME

 

 

[Yenn]

I was involved with engineering and construction when all the quality assesments became necesary for equipment.

 

We got miles of paper and b/s about quality but there was very little change to the final product. Just more cost for administration and a lot of heart burn when it didn't work.

 

I don't see the need for a proffessional paper pusher, all we need is for the people we have to be a bit more careful.

 

 

[old man emu]

Yenn,

 

Would you have tried to build a plane without having a set of plans?

 

It's the same thing for an organization to try to run without a plan to guide it toward its goals. The QMS and associated procedures are an organization's guide.

 

OME

 

 

[TK58]

Quality Management, Risk Management and Safety Management systems all are necessary in my view. And all are somewhat related. The state of those systems is a strong indicator of organisational capability and maturity in my view. Sadly there is very little evidence that RAAus understands what these systems are, let alone having even rudimentary implementations.

 

There is some focus on the SMS now, although progress still appears to be poor. Quality and Risk are two things I intend to push for some focus on from September.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Quality Management, Risk Management and Safety Management systems all are necessary in my view. And all are somewhat related. The state of those systems is a strong indicator of organisational capability and maturity in my view.

Would it be appropriate to have the one manager responsible for all these similar systems or will it compromise the checks and balances?

 

Would a subcommittee of 3 or so qualified volunteers be another way to go, full time for a period to get the systems up and running and then regular audits conducted during the year, with the day to day responsibilities falling to a position already in the office?

 

 

[damkia]

Would a subcommittee of 3 or so qualified volunteers be another way to go, full time for a period to get the systems up and running and then regular audits conducted during the year, with the day to day responsibilities falling to a position already in the office?

This is similar to how it normally works in industry.

 

It isn't really necessary to have a dedicated Quality Manager, as long as you have separate dedicated managers performing the tasks (for us, training, financial, registrations, technical, etc) with internal audits (measuring performance) by the "opposite" managers, and yearly external audits (measuring compliance). All aspects of audits should be specified within the construct of the QMS documentation

 

The internal audits should pick up most of the issues before they have time to escalate to the point we have recently seen with RA-Aus, with the external audit giving guidance on how to correct thee issues.

 

 

[poteroo]

When, and if, all of these new systems are introduced, and implemented - there will be a significant cost in time and fees for all of the FTF's. That can only mean flying fees will have to rise to cover these increased costs. We are already feeling some 'pushback' as dual flying fees head up toward $180/hr, in many cases, towards and beyond $200/hr. The end result will certainly be an RAAus with a stronger theoretical safety approach - enough to satisfy CASA - but whether this translates into lower accident rates is arguable in an industry where people operate equipment out of any possible supervision. It's GA as well as RAAus, so it will result in parallel price rises - but this will create buyer resistance. The economy is certainly not bullish.

 

People already know that flying is high risk. Regaling our clients with the 'benefits' of a QMS, a SMS, (and other acronyms), is hardly going to alter their intentions. If anything, an overselling of all these safety systems may actually have a negative effect of prospective clients. Who knows?

 

I'm not taking any particular position in all of this. I'm philosophical about the increasing need to protect everyones' bums from liability for their actions - have had to deal with it in other industries. The infamous 'paper trail'! Just look at CASAs' new approach to medicals for older pilots..... (another thread on here). Our FTF and GA school will do what we need to do to continue in business. That doesn't mean we think a paper system, per se, will ever replace sound training of our clients.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Hmm, interesting thread. Having spent a life-time in Quality Control/Assurance, including the position of Dept Q.C Manager in a large company, I'm torn as to whether this would be a good or bad thing. Certainly, due to the past conflicts, there has to be some form of non-biased control instigated. Like has been said, outside auditors cost an arm and a leg so that's out. If there's to be a person responsible for keeping the Pres in order, that person needs to be a Director, not a Manager ie on equal footing to the Pres. What's the going pay rates? Writing Q.A. manuals is a huge task and we probably need a temporary, small team of Technical Writers to sort out and update every thing, including our Rules & Regs. More expense. Have we really got the finances to cover these options?

 

Just a side note, if we're to be audited, shouldn't CASA be doing that? Seems logical to me. What would they charge? Oh, forgot, they would be biased wouldn't they? Where to start, where to start.

 

 

[old man emu]

Where to start, where to start.

The longest journey starts with the first step. (Attrib: Some Chinese guy who didn't have the bus fare)

 

You have taken the first step by identifying that there is no guiding system for RAAus. There should have been one long ago, as soon as the organization started to show signs of expansion. If a Quality Management System had been developed even 10 years ago, then the costs in today's money would have been lower. But that bridge has been crossed and burned. There is another one in the road ahead. What is to be done?

 

Here's my suggestion:

 

At the next General Meeting of RAAus the following motion could be moved, and seconded from the floor (or placed on the official agenda as a Notice of Motion)

 

That this meeting of members of RAAus directs the Board of Directors to establish, document and implement an Integrated Management System conforming to AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008, and covering all aspects of the Association's activities.

 

Notice should also be given that, should the above motion be carried, this supplementary motion should then be put:

 

That this meeting of members of the RAAus directs the Board of Directors to have the Integrated Management System ready for implementation ninety (90) days from the date of this meeting.

 

(NB: By using the phrase "covering all aspects of the Association's activities, I don't mean that such things as Safety Management Systems, Training Syllabus, Maintenance Requirements etc have to completed in the same time. There just needs to be a reference in the IMS policy that the RAAus will produce such documented systems.

 

The Integrated Management System defines the overall objectives of the Association, and sets out the managerial procedures to be used to reach these objectives.

 

Can it be done in 90 days? Yes. Taking it steady it might only take 90 hours to do.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[damkia]

That this meeting of members of the RAAus directs the Board of Directors to have the Integrated Management System ready for implementation ninety (90) days from the date of this meeting.

That is going to be huge ask, these sort of things usually have a 6-12 month timeframe applied to get from zero to implementation. Given we have no one on board at the moment that has the skills or knowledge of the Deed we are working under, the selection and organisation of staff and the reorganisation (including any Constitutional changes necessary) will more than likely exceed your 90 day timeframe by a long shot.

 

Notwithstanding that, there should be appropriate steps implemented with a report back to the members about progress (not specifically to committee or executive) every month via the magazine, per a dedicated schedule of targets (Gann chart). As long as progress is seen to be happening with this over a period of time with the achievement of all targets then the committee would be seen to be achieving adequate performance.

 

Yes, it will cost money to get it right, but we have seen what happens when things are left to deteriorate....it ultimately costs lives, whether by not getting sufficient report backs from incidents or simple stuff ups like the current registrations fiasco regarding gross weights.

 

This NEEDS to be put right once and for all, economising now will lead to similar issues occurring again.

 

 

[old man emu]

The idea of 90 days is to shove the Board. It is designed so they can't be slack.

 

I can't see why the system can't be done in that length of time. The system document is an outline of how things are going to be done. I fully agree that completing the documentation of procedures, which is another thing altogether, would take a longer time. But the need is to get a guding system in place as soon as possible.

 

OME