CASA's hidden agenda ????........

[Guest Maj Millard]

We are all very aware of the recent four failed CASA audits, and the grief that the results has caused many since.

 

But what occurred in the years prior ??... No doubt there has always been the need for CASA surveillance right from day one. RAAus didn't make any massive changes in recent years to the way it operates or keeps records, they've always done things that way.

 

Did CASA always do the surveillance checks each year, by coming into the office and checking things ?....were they signed off as ok, without physically checking in house. Was it a case of "oh we know you have ex-CASA guys in there (Middo, Tizzaed etc etc) so it's all good....no dramas boys ...like your style !....

 

All those aircraft rego details ( or more importantly lack off ) had to have always been there through the 90s and up to the present day. Don't attemp to tell me that's just a recent development. ,..And we all know CASA has the privilege of asking for anything, and everything of their choosing, during their checks.

 

So did CASA contribute to the problem, by doing incomplete, or no regular surveillances on us. ???....we're they short of staff to do them ?...they still are 90 odd short throughout their national system. Where did they suddenly find the people to do four audits in quick succession ?.........we're they just in-house sign-offs, that all was well ?...these inspections (or lack of) have to be on file somewhere, and generally the entity being inspected/survelailed would receive a written all clear,...or an NCN notice (non-compliance notice) as we have got recently four times in quick succession, that we have to action. Past NCNs should be on file somewhere also.

 

And why did things suddenly change ??.......can't be the increase in fatal accidents alone...we've always had our share, and probabily always will. Was it the very public Ferris Wheel affair, the international media coverage, and the almost mandatory ATSB investigation, and subsequent negative findings, on that inglorious little incident ?......

 

Additionally, we also have more than one ex- high level RAA official now within CASA (Ungermann and Poole) , and at least one possibly jaded ex-RAA high official, and ex CASA man ( Tizzard) who no doubt would still have the same in-house contacts that he boasted about having when needed, as he worked ?..for us. There are people on CASAs ' side who know exactly how we operate, or did in the past when they were on our side.

 

Is it simply just that CASA has a hidden agenda ?...........linked perhaps to the new licensing regime soon to be implemented . Are they simply on course to disrupt us, make us look like the bad guys, so they can all force us into compliance (finally!- control at last !). by turning us all into RPT holders , or (even easier for them) just watch us all slowly but surely disappear from the sky's, with no medical clearances and ever- decreasing murmurs of discontent ?... Have we simply got too flash and fancy for them, an embarassment that they don't have us fully corralled .

 

Some of our current excutive and board members think we're done for, even thought the bridle is in their hands, and they are supposed to be there to fight for us all the way......isn't that why we put them there ?...

 

And are we all going to just allow it to happen ?...ignoring all the great past work by members and board members together, our impressive overall safety records over the years when compared with other forms of recreational and GA aviation in this country , and internationally. I'm not prepared to go down without a fight...what about you ?.........we didn't get to where we are by being wimps, we are made of better stuff aren't we ???...........................Maj....

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If you read the details of Audit 1, you'll see there are carried forward failures of the audit that preceded Audit 1 of the series of 4 that you are talking about.

 

Suggesting that these Audits are new and that nothing was happening before them is simply wrong.

 

If you look at he findings of Audit 1 and compare them with each subsequent its obvious to me that the Audit process and findings are becoming more rigid as they proceed....as I would expect if, for example, the organisation I was auditing seemed to be ignoring my findings and not addressing the corrective actions.....

 

Before we poke someone else in the chest it might be to our advantage to review our own (in)actions before moving the cause to sit 100% with the other party.

 

Further, your almost suggesting that the 2 parties are of equivalent stature......That is not the case and even if their previous audits might have missed the mark then that's due to their poor aim rather than the lack of a bloody great target on our chest! Poor previous behaviour/performance cant be mitigation for current poor behaviour/performance can it?

 

If as you question, there is a hidden agenda or some other reasoning, they all required us to be subpar to work. If we weren't subpar then back to the drawing board for them. Again failures started and finished with us. Lets be honest about that and address it to our and their benefit!

 

The failures aren't of the order where the worlds most complex chemical reaction didn't succeed because we got some minor complex thing wrong...We got basic business record keeping wrong....We made decisions we were not authorised to make and we had no internal audit capability so everything's just fantastic until we get our head chopped off because it wasn't... Basic business skills manage risk and opportunity, use good governance and controls and the rest pretty much takes care of itself, or is relatively quickly apparent if it isn't!

 

Andy

 

 

[johnm]

Go for it guys - all this thrashing might create a solution

 

......................... please can you advise where you find these audits (seen them ............ but my little brain has forgot)

 

 

[sain]

Any chance we can get this moved to governance?

 

Isn't it more like 4 audits over 3 years? Hardly quick anyway

 

I think there were a number of contributing factors, that may have caused CASA senior management to ask questions and request audits. Some of the accidents we've had have highlighted some significant weaknesses in RA-Aus's oversite, which has allowed certain things to go unchallenged. Then something has goes wrong, such as an accident involving fatalities, and suddenly the serious problems are being found and highlighted by coroners and accident investigators. And then something else goes wrong, such as a crash into a stationary (sort of) object and more serious problems are found and highlighted.

 

I'm sure many of us can think of a number of incidents that have indicated there might be compliance issues at RA-Aus.

 

Anyway, as CASA has to answer to the Government of the day for aviation safety and it is not politically acceptable to say "she'll be right" when people have died.... they'll have called for an audit to see what is really going on. Once they've discovered problems "officially", they can't really stop until they have taken steps to ensure it gets sorted out. One of those nasty liability issues.

 

Plus they have to explain about the progress (or at least write briefs about it) or lack there of every estimates hearing.

 

No hidden agenda. Its all pretty simple. Now we need to show that we are good boys and girls and really can be trusted... want to bet we will ever be allowed to go back to the old situation?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Go for it guys - all this thrashing might create a solution......................... please can you advise where you find these audits (seen them ............ but my little brain has forgot)

on the www.raa.asn.au webpage under news......go back to Feb 7th (being 2 days prior to the Feb 9th meeting) and the details can be got from there. They happened prior to the members portal and as such are in the news section rather than the members section....

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

There is no doubt the CASA are putting the pressure on. Why, I don't really know. Years ago a few badly done things around the system, came to my notice and when Lee Ungermann came to Lethbridge and the weather was really crook and no flying could be done with the instructors , I got him alone and asked how he thought things were going in the safety area and he indicated that He was quite happy with the state of affairs compared with previous times. This would have been about 2005. Since then a few weird events have happened that I am aware of and there would no doubt have been some that I wasn't aware of. Many of them would have been enough to look for a common cause in the practices of the organisation and some endemic shortcomings. I'm not sure there was but there is always room for improvement. Changes of personnel as well at CASA may reflect a harder line. I have no idea where Ungermann and Poole fit in there. IF they are capable people we need them HERE.

 

I'm not sure of us getting very sympathetic treatment at the top, as I really believe they don't quite get the type of flying we do. They are most interested in the Airlines which self regulate. Ha Ha.

 

We would be seen as a liability they wish wasn't there. I believe we have a right to some airspace and we should make a reasonable standard. We don't carry people for hire or reward and carry a few other restrictions and limitations, as well.. There has to be a balance. Trade -off.

 

Should we do better? . Yep. What is the best way to do this at a reasonable cost? THAT is the question. Education rather than punitive treatment is the way. We do this for education of ourselves and for FUN. If we were ruled by people who had done some of this on the way up perhaps we might be able to argue the case better. I haven't heard any airline that used U/L instructors being able to show some deficiency that wasn't in GA. (Which is barely affordable). Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

maj, I suspect the alarm bells started going off at CASA once the RAA board started to talk about meeting without needing disclosure.

 

non disclosure works in the short term but breeds incompetence in the long term

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Andy you miss the point completely, I'm not talking 1-2 years back. Lets go back say to the year 2000. We're there audits done by CASA that year ?.....and if so did we pass or fail, because I'm sure the records and record keeping was exactly the same back then. There would have to be at least one audit done in a year. If so why wasn't action taken then, instead of 13 years later ?.............sorry, something smells off here, and it's not all in the RAAus dog box....................Maj...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

We can speculate back to the late 1980's if that makes your argument work. My point is the RAA board gave themselves the rope...

 

 

[M61A1]

A few years go, "governance" became a corporate buzzword, and along with it, came some strange ideas about running things. I see it a lot around here lately, I think that there is a link. It seems to be read as "absolute compliance", so I guess it whether or not it works, depends on how smart the boss is. Because if the boss isn't so bright, you'll have comply with a lot of silly ideas.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy you miss the point completely, I'm not talking 1-2 years back. Lets go back say to the year 2000. We're there audits done by CASA that year ?.....and if so did we pass or fail, because I'm sure the records and record keeping was exactly the same back then. There would have to be at least one audit done in a year. If so why wasn't action taken then, instead of 13 years later ?.............sorry, something smells off here, and it's not all in the RAAus dog box....................Maj...

Nope. Read page 25 of the 1 to 50 file. You will see reference to an unactioned item from an audit in 2009 from the 1st audit (of the 4 that started the whole rego stop issue) which was Dec 2011, and a reference to previous audits inferred before then. Does that go back far enough? To be blunt what happened in the year 2000 while interesting to some is completely irrelevant to current happenings. Was, for example, LSA an issue in 2000? How many aircraft of the time in the AUF had IFA props then? Were there aircraft flying at 600kg that couldn't prove a right to do so? In fact LSA didn't exist, IFA props probably were non-existent in the AUF fleet and 600kg's was merely a weight way beyond that allowed.

 

Again I ask the question, if the auditor was shown to be slack in years gone by, how does that help our cause today? Does it somehow provide an "Ignore legislation" card that we can play?

 

Andy

 

 

[dodo]

Major,

 

you are getting interested rather late.

 

Your inference of four audits since 2011 is incorrect. One audit, followed by three follow-ups ...

 

Usually, if you get audited, you get some recommendations, and you work through those, fix some things, write up what you changed.

 

If the auditor says a follow up audit is required, you FIX EVERYTHING NOW.

 

A second follow-up would be unusual, and a last warning. A third...well...

 

I commented on this on this forum when the audit results were considered secret by the board in late 2012. If you think it necessary, I will find that post.

 

The audit results were published by the board two or three days before the February EGM.

 

I questioned the board at that February's meeting (Queanbeyan Feb 2013) on why they thought the result was surprising... you can check in the minutes if you choose to. And read the answer.

 

very grumpy,

 

dodo

 

 

[Keith Page]

A few years go, "governance" became a corporate buzzword, and along with it, came some strange ideas about running things. I see it a lot around here lately, I think that there is a link. It seems to be read as "absolute compliance", so I guess it whether or not it works, depends on how smart the boss is. Because if the boss isn't so bright, you'll have comply with a lot of silly ideas.

M61A1

 

You are so very correct with the buzz word "governance" it has infested the place.. I think you forgot (1) "polliticaly correct" (2)transparent...

 

Do you think all those fuzzy words are made for the dills who are scared of making a decission or scared of mistakes and need a blameless way out? OR those who do not want to be accountable?

 

What about the "Systems and Processes" tilt on things?, No mistakes here the system and process is faulty not the person making the decission.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[johnm]

I'm impreseed about page 31 & 32 of the last report

 

the audit reads (appears to me) that the plane was ......................... initially registered as a 'late flyer' ...................... latter hangared and called a 'Raven' (dec 2009) ................... examination of the file then revelaed that the plane was apparently a Cessna 150 (jul 2011 - letter from S Bell tecn manager to owner ? saying rego had been misrepresented - plane then still on VH register)

 

aircraft now off RAA register - CASA and federal police to investigate

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Buzzwords are like balloons, full of air and when pop'd there is nothing left. In the IT world its my view that the word "cloud" is the current buzzword. It's a word that of itself adds nothing to the IT debate it merely over generalizes some pre-existing concepts.

 

Governance and control, however is not an empty balloon, Anyone working in large business will be well aware that its real, you cant audit hot air, in the business I'm employed by (defence and Aerospace) the organization spends enormous effort and energy auditing governance and control. In fact we jokingly laugh that our organization will spend $20 ensuring that $10 of fraud(worst case) or waste(best case) doesn't occur. It isn't really like that but rather the directors have to ensure that they meet their obligations and just as importantly are seen to meet their obligations. These obligations aren't just something nebulous that a bunch of forumites dreamt up, they are enacted in legislation and policed by semigovernment organisations, the same rules apply to RAAus.

 

If the words Governance and control offend, then I'm more than happy to replace them with the underlying realities which I'll leave you to determine if its needed or not.

 

For those that have turned their nose at an apparent buzzword, do you actually understand what it is? Have a quick squizz at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance and tell me its not relevant to RAAus or that we are well on top of our obligations.

 

The vast majority of issues that have been raised over the last few years AGM's and GM''s has all been to do with Governance and control and the lack of transparency around those things.

 

That's my opinion!

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

"Going foward "......is my current favourite, and Canberra loves it also.................Maj...

 

 

[johnm]

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."

 

-- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

 

"But what is it good for?"

 

-- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,

 

commenting on the microchip.

 

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

 

 

 

-- Bill Gates, 1981

 

 

 

"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required."

 

-- Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University

 

 

 

 

 

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

 

-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the cloud will never replace the windows server

 

windows reseller conference 2010

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Vision is often lacking. Alexander Graham Bell presumed that his new invention, the telephone, would be used as a sort of one-way medium to broadcast news to those households which installed one.

 

 

[johnm]

.................. for the record I'm thinking 'GOVERNANCE' is an ethical parameter / boundary

 

(so it should not / can't be varied or replaced ...................... with anything we don't know of - I think)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Vision is often lacking. Alexander Graham Bell presumed that his new invention, the telephone, would be used as a sort of one-way medium to broadcast news to those households which installed one.

In fact it was an Irishman, Riley who invented the telephone. His mistake was that he only built one - called and called but no one answered.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

While he was trying to get an answer...his wife said O'riley !..................

 

 

[M61A1]

Buzzwords are like balloons, full of air and when pop'd there is nothing left. In the IT world its my view that the word "cloud" is the current buzzword. It's a word that of itself adds nothing to the IT debate it merely over generalizes some pre-existing concepts.Governance and control, however is not an empty balloon, Anyone working in large business will be well aware that its real, you cant audit hot air, in the business I'm employed by (defence and Aerospace) the organization spends enormous effort and energy auditing governance and control. In fact we jokingly laugh that our organization will spend $20 ensuring that $10 of fraud(worst case) or waste(best case) doesn't occur. It isn't really like that but rather the directors have to ensure that they meet their obligations and just as importantly are seen to meet their obligations. These obligations aren't just something nebulous that a bunch of forumites dreamt up, they are enacted in legislation and policed by semigovernment organisations, the same rules apply to RAAus.

 

If the words Governance and control offend, then I'm more than happy to replace them with the underlying realities which I'll leave you to determine if its needed or not.

 

For those that have turned their nose at an apparent buzzword, do you actually understand what it is? Have a quick squizz at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance and tell me its not relevant to RAAus or that we are well on top of our obligations.

 

The vast majority of issues that have been raised over the last few years AGM's and GM''s has all been to do with Governance and control and the lack of transparency around those things.

 

That's my opinion!

 

Andy

I'm not suggesting that good governance isn't a necessity, it always has been, just that in the last few years, the term has popped up throughout the industry, and despite it's popular use, has been implemented poorly, and used as an "excuse" for a lot a managerial rubbish. I too work in defence, a company I worked for was doing quite well, and most people reasonably happy, along comes the boss, just having done his company course on this new thing called "governance". With this new governance came a lot of changes that stopped things from running smoothly, morale is lower than ever, and employees leaving every week. It's a necessary thing, but the execution is critical.

Basically I was suggesting that maybe someone from CASA went to the same course, and that the result was they were no longer happy with a common sense approach.

 

 

[turboplanner]

he audit reads (appears to me) that the plane was ......................... initially registered as a 'late flyer' ...................... latter hangared and called a 'Raven' (dec 2009) ................... examination of the file then revelaed that the plane was apparently a Cessna 150 (jul 2011 - letter from S Bell tecn manager to owner ? saying rego had been misrepresented - plane then still on VH register)aircraft now off RAA register - CASA and federal police to investigate

It's very hard to make a case for a hidden CASA agenda when you read something like this, and there are many other things in the audit reports which also make you shake your head - and these are only the ones which were caught! And even then only the ones with registration non-confirmance. Goodness knows what wouod be found out there in terms of airworthiness with a detailed inspection. So if anything there CASA have not engaged enough, but you just can't deny that the sanctions they issued had to be issued to clean the registrations up.

 

Although CASA spelled out in their documents the duties of a Recreational Aviation Australia, Inc. board member, and I produced those documents, even now I have not heard one word from board members or otherwise that board members have said something like "Gee, we missed out on seeing those documents, we better circulate them immediately and make sure board members are carrying out there job specification. CASA have the right to jump on them now, but haven't.

 

And as we know, the Association has been operating without a Safety Management System since it was mandated in 2010. Those of you who work in large companies might like to ask your safety officer what it means for a company to continue operations without an SMS.

 

When CASA warned the Association about this, and a President moved immediately to set one up, he was overridden by others and there is still no SMS.

 

If CASA had done what it should have done at that time, the Association would have ceased operations until there was an operating SMS. However Casa personnel have put themselves in a potentially culpable situation by going along with allowing operations while the Assocation follows an extended path towards safety compliance.

 

If there is a hidden agenda by CASA, they're using the Keystone Cops method.

 

 

[johnm]

Turbo - in this world of infinite possibilities - and out of interest its probable that there might be some wayward VH registrations as well ? ......................... I realsie 2 wrongs don't make a right, but, who audits CASA registrations of aircraft ?

 

(assuming they self audit with auditors of impeccable acumen)