Third tech manager in 18 months gone........

[Jabiru7252]

And I still have no rego.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yep....Kaz

Prove it!

 

 

[Oscar]

Last month, Jonathan Aleck of CASA released a 'Discussion Paper' on RAAOs. It is worth reading.

 

In particular, it is worth noting this section: (bolding has been added by me)

 

Acceptance of the Level Playing Field13. With few exceptions, the invidiously monopolistic domination of a market, including the ‘market’ for sport and recreational aviation activities, is inconsistent with contemporary Australian economic principles and, in some cases, the law. In the event, it is simply not realistic to expect or assume that any individual RAAO, whatever its historical tenure may be, is entitled to occupy a particular field of activity exclusively and without competition. In theory, and in fairness, any organisation capable of satisfying the requirements for approval as an RAAO could and should be eligible to apply for an approval, and any organisation satisfying those requirements should be entitled to be approved.

 

14. That said, having regard to the nature and extent of the kinds of sport and recreational aviation activities currently administered by existing bodies, and cognisant of the potential safety risks attendant on the approval of more than one RAAO to administer essentially the same activities, it is not unreasonable to expect that, as a matter of safety and consistent with applicable anti-competition laws, CASA might not properly approve more than one applicant in respect of a particular sphere of activity.

 

15. At this point, it would still be premature to speculate about whether, and if so under what circumstances, there might be more than one RAAO approved to administer the same activity (in at least one case, there already is), and it would be unwise to suggest or imply that there will only ever be a single RAAO approved to administer a particular activity. As a practical matter, however, and mindful of CASA’s overarching commitment to safety, and our expectations of others in that connection, it is reasonable to say that one of the most effective bulwarks against competition is to strive to offer the very best product and services, on reasonable terms and at affordable prices.

The last three 'permanent' Tech Managers ( i.e., in this case, people appointed to the position who did not have the word 'temporary' attached to them when appointed!) : Steve Bell, Adam Finn, and now Wayne Matthews, have all, it appears, had their employment 'terminated' by RAA - and all with no reasonable explanation of why.

 

If - to be exceedingly charitable to the Board of the time - these terminations were all due to a lack of professional competence to handle the requirements of the position, then the selection capability of the Boards of the time has to be seen as woefully incapable. I personally find it very difficult to accept that there has been a passing parade of inadequate Tech. Managers.

 

That leaves the possibility that there is a deep-seated and fundamental schism between the understanding of the requirements of the position as seen from the Tech. Manager's desk vs. what the Board / Executive expects. Another word for this is organisational politics.

 

The Tech. Manager operates within a clear framework of administration of the CASA requirements. There is no qualification of those requirements to suit the 'political' quirks of an organisation, no 'if it pleases your Lordship' condition. It is, frankly, very difficult to believe other than that this succession of terminations of Tech. Manager employment is evidence that RAA senior management is not prepared to accept that the performance of the Tech. Manager position requires all the necessary boxes to be ticked - that in some way, the Tech. Manager should 'modify' the exercise of the position to please the grand poobahs at the top of the organisation.

 

This has to be fixed - and fixed fast. If anybody thinks that CASA does not notice that when it contacts the Tech.Manager, it has to ask to be connected to 'whoever is in the position today', they are surely dreaming? Jonathan Aleck is signalling that unless an RAAO can offer 'the very best product and services', it will entertain the creation of competitive methods of providing the services.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Transparency is probably why Wayne was asked to leave, when he first started releasing status updates he included the size of the queue. Once the members became aware of how large the problem was, it was dropped from his reports. The queue in February was according to Runciman 100 planes, last time Wayne published that number it was over 400.How well can you work in an organisation where the management is out to misrepresent the situation so blatantly?

Not at all true. The last figure I received was around 500 planes currently unregistered. Many awaiting info from the owners. The current executive do not wish to keep any information from the membership unless it is required for confidentiality or industrial relations reasons.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Thanks Jim, 500, so its gone up another ~100 planes? How is the queue progressing without Wayne and his wife on the job?

 

 

[Spriteah]

Thanks Jim, 500, so its gone up another ~100 planes? How is the queue progressing without Wayne and his wife on the job?

Work has not stopped at the RAAus office. The 500 figure is about 4 weeks old.

 

Jim.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Lets move on guys, Wayne is happier out of there and will always find something to do.

 

Lets let Mark get on with running the business for our benefit.

 

 

[Oscar]

Lets move on guys, Wayne is happier out of there and will always find something to do.Lets let Mark get on with running the business for our benefit.

I don't believe that anybody is even so much as suggesting that Wayne has been - in any way - at fault for this development. Though I have NO idea of the intricacies behind what has happened, I am entirely disposed to believe that he bought to the position experience, enthusiasm, expertise and incredible energy, and I for one hope that he has escaped what appears to be a poisoned chalice with his morale and his future intact.

 

HOWEVER - and once again - it would appear that the adage that 'those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them' has struck. Apart from the vicarious sport of entering bets against how long the next Tech. Manager will last in the position, the turn-over of Tech. Managers can surely only be seen as an expression of the dysfunctionality of the RAA as an organisation. The repetition of Tech. Managers lasting a matter of months is a cancer; the new Board MUST address this as a matter of primary concern - and to do that, it needs to conduct an investigation of what has happened in the past, identify the common factor(s) and excise the contributing elements.

 

I know that I am by no means alone in believing that certain personalities figure largely in that equation, but it is up to the Board to undertake the necessary fact-finding and take the necessary action. Unless this is done - and done decisively - there is a real possibility that the new Board will be left with little more to do than put the chairs on the tables and turn out the lights on RAA. I have confidence in at least some of the new members of the Board being both capable and willing to take up that challenge and they have my total support as an RAA member to do exactly that.

 

The forthcoming period in RAA history is not 'business as usual' - it is: 'evolve, or die.' There are good, competent people coming onto the Board in September; RAA members need to support them in changing the organisation for the better.

 

 

[poteroo]

The writing is already on the wall for any Recreational Aviation Administration organisation which thinks it has complete 'cover' of its' particular section of recreational aviation - See the new thread in Governing Bodies.

 

happy days,

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Self regulation doesn't work, never has, never will.

 

 

[Gibbo]

My unregistered aircraft count prediction from a few months ago is on track.

 

500/3400(??) = approx 15% of the fleet grounded for some reason or another. Plus the 100 or so that have been refused rego.

 

30% by march next year.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Work has not stopped at the RAAus office. The 500 figure is about 4 weeks old.Jim.

It must be stalled or bogged for the last half of this week due to the circumstances. Last week (Thursday) I was told my rego needs the warning (Fly at own risk) placard and that they would post such. On Monday I received an email from Wayne that I need to fit the warning placard and refer op manual. I printed off the placard and on Tuesday morning this week I received the posted warning placard from RAA. I actually fitted both and emailed the images to RAA before noon on Tuesday. RAA acknowledged receiving and said they placed on the file and gave to the appropriate person. To date I've heard no more. I won't phone as I expect they are doing thier best under the circumstances and I'll wait a little longer. The renewal was due 9 August. It will be good when things are sorted. Only posted this to advise my experience with the hold up and to share my belief that the production line of renewals has either slowed or stopped for the present.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

I am inclined to agree f t, but I'm not sure it is the fundamental problem here. Having multiple paths does bring in a possibility of less than critical ( efficient and unit cost effective,) size organisations trying to struggle along. The whole of the recreational "sector" is not that large and infighting would not be productive However it is done there should be an "umbrella" that they all belong to, to have more "say" with the regulator.

 

AOPA has been the organisation of "complaint and representation" in GA and probably would be able to do this for the RAAus too but how many have joined?

 

IF SAAA have problems who represents them too? We don't have an aviation user's Ombudsman. (Ian could have gone there when he wasn't handled too well by the RAAus).

 

Essentially you just COP it at the moment. with the CASA having deep pockets the individual just can't hope to get anywhere by themselves and the situation is of strict liability and a fine ( and prison) so what can you do?

 

IF you think just doing everything right, nothing will happen , that is a head in the sand moment. You life of tranquillity in the skies can come to a sudden jolt and all sorts of unexpected events can come into play. We need to sort the relationship out, including liability and indemnity for the organisation when carrying out functions on behalf of the CASA. You are in cloud Cuckoo land till you do. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Don't see it that way myself........The real issues should only last for 1 complete cycle of registration. If all was working as we wish then the hassles would be 12 months long. This "problem" started in November I think last year" so we are 9 months through 12 months. If there were 500 outstanding representing 15% then by 12 months if nothing improves we will be 20%. if 10% is done in 1.2 months then the time taken to do all the fleet once should only be circa 15 months (Assumes that a way forward on MTOW and IBIS type of problem is found) After once through the enhanced sausage grinder we should have an easier time in the future shouldn't we........unless the problems of the paper system haven't been addressed and we somehow, through gross stupidity feel the need to rinse and repeat....No time to sharpen the axe there's trees to be cut down!!!

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

Not trying to make a problem , but to point out the obvious. How could we operate without a techman/ person? Surely THAT position is critical to the functioning of the show?. CASA would have to supply someone straight away to fill in temporarily. Talk of SMS's and having this situation is BS .No-one else in there has the required qualifications to make the decisions. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

see what happens tony king when the queue figure is revealed. unhappy punters!

 

This is why I think the RAA are keeping it quiet...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The RAA website has already announced a temporary replacement Tech man. I believe he was the assistant to Wayne. They have also stated that the position should be put out to the employment agency for additional applicants, as is now the recommended procedure.

 

This by the way is the same system that found us Wayne in the first place, so the current score stands at 0 for 1.......

 

The bottom line as I see it at this crucial time for our organisation, is the absolute need for TEAMWORK !....by all involved, from GM down to all board members. This is no time for power plays or non- productive politics.

 

There is a massive need right now for hard work and the correct decisions, to ensure that the organisation gets on the right side of our problems, and stops loosing disenchanted members, as it is now doing.

 

We may be sitting on a sizeable amount of cash reserve ATM, but if the current situation is allowed to continue that may not be the case in a couple of years..............Maj....

 

 

[ave8rr]

W

 

His employment was terminated

Why?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

WWhy?

From the info I have received on what transpired, the GM, backed by the board, has inferred that Wayne was not performing the duties that he was hired to perform.................Maj....

 

 

[Guest john]

An email has been sent to Mark Clayton today requesting the following details:

 

1. Who is the current Technical Manager for RAA?

 

2. Is Wayne Matthews still a current employee of RAA & if not why not?

 

As soon as a response is received from Mark Clayton, the information will be posted on this site.

 

 

[David Isaac]

An email has been sent to Mark Clayton today requesting the following details:1. Who is the current Technical Manager for RAA?

 

2. Is Wayne Matthews still a current employee of RAA & if not why not?

 

As soon as a response is received from Mark Clayton, the information will be posted on this site.

John,

There has been an announcement on the RA Aus website to the members detailing the non continuation of Wayne's tenure. I think it was copied earlier in this thread.

 

Its over lets move on.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

The RAA website has already announced a temporary replacement Tech man. I believe he was the assistant to Wayne. They have also stated that the position should be put out to the employment agency for additional applicants, as is now the recommended procedure.This by the way is the same system that found us Wayne in the first place, so the current score stands at 0 for 1.......

The bottom line as I see it at this crucial time for our organisation, is the absolute need for TEAMWORK !....by all involved, from GM down to all board members. This is no time for power plays or non- productive politics.

 

There is a massive need right now for hard work and the correct decisions, to ensure that the organisation gets on the right side of our problems, and stops loosing disenchanted members, as it is now doing.

 

We may be sitting on a sizeable amount of cash reserve ATM, but if the current situation is allowed to continue that may not be the case in a couple of years..............Maj....

Just an idea. Would it be possible that if a suitabily qualified / experienced person wasn't in a position to relocate to Canberra could some of the more involved / difficult renewals be secure bagged to that persons location and actioned remotely. Such a decentralised system should be able to happen. This may allow spreading the workload and improve turnaround times. creating a win win situation.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I have no idea why the RAA hasn't already modernized the registration system? Its about a week's worth of programming to create a documentation system from scratch.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Prove it!

Prove what, Turbs?

 

1. That RAAus Inc is the employer and not the members?

 

A. You have less rights than a share holder but at least you can't be sued in personam for unfair dismissal or the negligence of the Association. The Association has legal personality though, and it can be, Or

 

2. That the Privacy Act and other legal bars prevent the employer from making a detailed statement?

 

A. The publication of personal information about a person in those circumstance would clearly be a breach of privacy and may also ground an action in defamation. It's also not right, Turbs...if Wayne wants to put it out there, he can, but RAAus can't if it ever wants to be considered a good faith employer.

 

You don't even know if he is going to initiate action under the Fair Work Act within the limitation period. Possibly even he doesn't know, either. How stupid would an employer be to prejudice its decision by making public statements that might be held against it at a hearing?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest john]

John,There has been an announcement on the RA Aus website to the members detailing the non continuation of Wayne's tenure. I think it was copied earlier in this thread.

Its over lets move on.

Referring to the existing RAA Official Website, the Technical Manager for RAA is Wayne Mathews. If in the event that he has gone through the revolving door, then it is the responsibility of RAA Management to immediately ammend this website information.

 

It appears that from the outside looking in, the RAA Executive & administration staff past & present are still shuffling the chairs around on the sinking "Titanic" to eventual self destruction.