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

[turboplanner]

We know there are unairworthy GA aircraft, because most of us have seen them, and the whole world knows there is bad behaviour after reading about Barry Hempel, but they probably get more attention through the FOI network, and LAMES work under regular scrutiny. Any CASA "Audit" would most likely be of an individual, and there are plenty of examples of warnings and plenty of examples of pilots who no longer fly, courtesy CASA. In fact after reading constant criticism of CASA on another forum, it was interesting to see over time the admissions that a good part of the group had had their licences cancelled - all being innocent of course.

 

 

[sain]

that would be ANAO (Australian National Audit Office). Not sure if they have done one... the anao web site should have details if they have:

 

http://www.anao.gov.au

 

Edit:

 

Oh, and it looks like they've done quite a few. here is one going back to 2000:

 

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/1999-2000/Aviation-Safety-Compliance

 

 

[Keith Page]

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)

I have always wondered who audits the auditors.

When one thinks about this, there is a great opening for false claims by someone who wants to generate mischief.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

....... there is a great opening for false claims by someone who wants to generate mischief.

No Keith really! who woulda thunk it! hey!

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think the word "Hidden" is needed. You can just ask is there an agenda. If it was to shake up the show, well they HAVE . Did it have to be this way.? I would need some convincing. There is always a better way and a better way would be less damaging. No need to knock innocent people around. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I agree Nev, it wasn't fully thought through. When it first happened the office, under instructions from someone nameless....stopped sending out renewal notices..... I was talking to CASA and pointed out that this had happened and that there would be many who just want to fly and will do so until the post delivers something to tell them its that time of the year again.... If the post didn't deliver it, what was going to stop them flying when rego expired?

 

CASA hadn't considered that RAAus might have stopped sending our renewals.....and were completely caught unaware!

 

Why did we? Stuffed if I know........But the brightest minds were not at play!!

 

Our exposure to something going wrong and legals being instigated where what prompted my call to CASA...

 

I felt it was reasonable for members given past renewal notifications to expect that would continue in the absence of advice to the contrary.... It doesn't remove liability from the pilot but it sure muddied the water in my opinion!

 

 

[frank marriott]

Legal Responsibility - even in a motor care it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure the vehicle is registered, not the Dept. of Transport. Renewal notices are only a reminder.

 

 

[Methusala]

I think that those on the forum who repeat the mantra, "Yep, we got it wrong. Its all our own fault so shut up and take the punishment. " ( as I am hearing it) are conveniently disregarding the strong evidence that CASA has developed a dislike for us. When the nitpicking descends to matters such as missing hyphens (for god's sake!) on a recreational a/c or the fact that your passenger warning card mentions 95:10 on a 19 series plane... how does this add up when CASA ignored airframe weaknesses on Nomads for years and the same with exploding fuel tanks on helicopters. I recall the ominous words of the then new head of CASA ,"I'm a regulator". I also recall a publication about safety in airspace featuring the image of a Drifter in a not so subtle context. (These things are the problem... I simply am more convinced by Maj's argument than any other that our recreational pastime will become far less fun and far more sweat inn future. Yes this is a rant but I'm over the whole thing. Might just as well play with r/c models..

 

 

[Keith Page]

No Keith really! who woulda thunk it! hey!

Andy

Now have a read of Methusal's post No33, he goes on and mentions the mischief I am suggesting, minus the sarcasm.

 

See what I was getting at, get at about with one eyes and ears open plus a bit of thinking, good on ya Methusala.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Nit picking!! You guys really don't get it........

 

In audit report No 1 there were some anomalies found and identified and a part of the report specified what we needed to do to get our stuff in a pile and move on...... I would suggest at that stage CASA truly believed that we would do exactly that, they would follow up and things relationship wise would go back to what they were..... In Commercial aviation world a 2nd failed audit is almost unheard of and those that fail the second might very well get a show cause letter to explain why CASA shouldn't ground them.

 

By the time Audit 4 was failed CASA was out to do what ever they needed to get our attention and get us to react. Were they nit picking at that stage? Well it depends on what you call nit picking. If our Tech Manuals say that to achieve outcomes X we do A,B and C then they want proof of each step and an absolute surety that X was the outcome. In Audit 1 if your photo of the rego didn't have a hyphen and that was all there was to it, more than likely that CASA would have identified the fact that the Tech Manual called for it, and it seems to be missing to who ever was at the audit but I doubt it would have been documented and followed up etc. By Audit 4 however every discrepancy would have been picked up and documented.

 

Since then we have had Audit 5 which we failed again, but both sides expected that to be the outcome but I'm told that in general while technically a fail things are better than they were. However today as I understand it if our Tech Manual says that something will have the following characteristics then you can rest assured that CASA will measure us against that spec with zero ability to deviate.

 

Is it them that's being pedantic, Yes!! Was it them or us that made them that way? I contend it was very much us. Furthermore as suggested in previous posts even when they brought everything to a halt even then we went out of our way to embugger them by stopping sending out renewals! Its my view that collectively they were pretty p!ssed off with our management and I don't see things going back to what they were until we have collectively lifted our game and shown we are capable of following basic instructions.

 

At a micro level focusing on a missing hyphen is, pedantic and reeks of B/S. At a Macro level its a symptom of malaise that has been around a long time, and one that CASA will tolerate for exactly 0microseconds longer....

 

The point of comparison between us and CASA and R22's and <insert something else here> is that while you contend they were as bad or worse (presumably) the reality is that in RAAus we are knocking of a substantial amount of members every year and its at a level that its certainly noticeable. Every meeting with CASA since the Audit 4 groundings has had as an action item discussions on the rising fatalities. Whether we think they are better or worse than R22's etc is irrelevant. If CASA handled those things poorly what exactly is it in legislation that allows us the right to also be handled poorly? As I suggested before the fact that CASA didn't shoot us for the failures that obviously (at least to me) go back beyond the 4 audit cycle is more about there poor aim than us doing anything proactively to remove the target from our chest!

 

Is that the truth? or have I got it grossly wrong?

 

It would be like me complaining to a cop who pulled me over for speeding that I've been speeding here for years and you've never pulled me over before so cut me some slack!! How well will that work?

 

 

[nomadpete]

As Andy said, now that we have drawn attention to ourselves, we have to show that we can jump through simple hoops before they ( the regulator, who rule us) will let us have any extra rope. Maybe after RAAus show they (we) can follow the rules, then we might be in a position to bargain or lobby them for our freedoms.

 

To continue with someone else's analogy, if I repeatedly get caught breaking the road rules, I lose the privilege to drive. What's the difference?

 

Pete

 

 

[fly_tornado]

maybe the bikie analogy works better where you have a group of individuals (the RAA board and exec) getting together for the purpose of deceiving the regulator (secrecy motion put forward)?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

FT, RAAus is a private incorporated company with a deed of agreement with CASA. We do not have , or need to have a complete open book policy to them. If the company, or the board want to keep some matters private , then that is their

 

privelage as a company.....................Maj....

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Deed of arrangement just covers 1/2 the relationship aspects. The contractual part where we promise to do stuff for them and they pay us some $. The other 1/2 of the relationship aspects is the regulator part that is covered in legislation not a civil contract. We must disclose to them what the legislation requires us to. We have no ability to choose how much or little we might or might not disclose. With regards the contractual part if the deed for last year was deficient in identifying what we must disclose and how we are to do so, then don't be surprised if the following year the obligations are more laid out and clear. In fact its my opinion that if you peruse the most recent Deed signed only a few days ago with the previous year you are likely to see exactly that in action.

 

The fact that there are 2 separate arrangements makes managing the relationship tricky and a turtle approach where we just pull our head in and wait for them to go away is destined IMHO to fail.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I have always wondered who audits the auditors.When one thinks about this, there is a great opening for false claims by someone who wants to generate mischief.

Why do "babes" come to mind? hmmm!

 

Kaz

 

 

[fly_tornado]

FT, RAAus is a private incorporated company with a deed of agreement with CASA. We do not have , or need to have a complete open book policy to them. If the company, or the board want to keep some matters private , then that is theirprivelage as a company.....................Maj....

I am sure when CASA see an organisation regardless of its legal structure trying to increase secrecy they are aware of its implications and motives, I am sure they have been down this path before.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Major, we've repeated over and over that RAA is not a company, the board members are not directors, they are a board of management - a management group, nothing re, RAA is not engaged in commerce, so there is no need for any secrets, and it handles public monies so it's accountable transparently to the ACT Department of Justice and the general public.

 

CASA, or anyone else would have every right to be alarmed at the secrecy which has been going on, and sooner or later someone whether CASA, a member, or anyone will pounce.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Turbs,...From the website of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.....

 

"Our not -for-profit association is governed by an elected board of voleenteer DIRECTORS, supported by a small full-time management team".......quote!............

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well that needs to be corrected then, check the Constitution and the Incorporated Associations Act for the ACT.

 

They also had a "CEO" position, and now a "General Manager" too and this also skewed people's thinking.

 

 

[facthunter]

You don't need to get too hung up on titles. The function of each group/individual and the responsibilities collectively and individually are what is essential to deal with.. I have never got the impression that board members are full of themselves or worried about what they are called. Half the problem is that pilots by their very nature are individualists, argumentative and think they have the answer to most questions. There has to be more group agreement and functional effectiveness (working together). Not a natural state for individualists. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

FH, I don't think people being too full of themselves has done much damage in recent years, there's a saying "Give an Australian a blazer and a badge with his name on it and he'll take on the world", but I think the real damage has occurred because others assume the title has a corporate connotation.

 

For example, that RAA board members, who constitute a board of management, so are managers, and therefore responsible for getting things done, are confusing themselves with Directors who simply have a brief overview function and delegate the getting things done to executives.

 

Even the Major as of today thought he was campaigning to be a Director.

 

This is compounded when, for example an office manager is given the Executive title General Manager. When that happens it's understandable that the person will go off and assume executive powers, and the managers will only be getting second hand information on what they are supposed to be doing.

 

There is a situation right now, reported on this forum where a new Technical Manager is being sought, and even though there has been some very persuasive argument that the present Job Description of Technical Manager is not appropriate, and perhaps two people should be employed with separate functions, not only have these key points been ignored, but at least one board member has delegated the job to the general manager.

 

Under those circumstances you can't blame the general manager for employing the person he wants and taking executive action that he sees fit - the board members can only catch up later, and that then leads to the defacto CEO again.

 

To the board members who sent me the regular emails with "good work, keep it up, try this etc" in the past about the "tail wagging the dog" well one tail has gone, and I'd appreciate some support here before the situation just builds into a repeat through no one's fault but the structure.

 

I've also mentioned the CASA documentation which links the Association to ICAO, and spells out the job descriptions of this associations board members. Although I've posted it and mentioned it on a number of occasions, no board member has even said "Gee, I didn't know that, I'll comply with it immediately from now on"

 

And that's strange because the evidence of the CASA requirement, which is reasonable in every way is there in black in white to be used at any time like a Hiroshima bomb on each and every board member.

 

 

[facthunter]

What is the link to ICAO? and why would that be necessary, and what's more how would that ever work. I thought we were not involved with it although since we are in the airspace it would have to be covered to satisfy other operations that ARE under ICAO. Is this the PROBLEM?

 

I know that McCormick doesn''t want exemptions . I can't see how you could entirely eliminate them from the aviation scene. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well contrary to a lot of hyperbole, not only CASA complies with ICAO standards, but those other supposedly "freedom protecting countries such as New Zealand and the United States, and a whole raft of others starting with Great Britain. Things have been moving fast while we've all been bitching.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I agree with Turbo that the incorporated associations structure does indeed have a board of management and expects the board to manage. Which is right and proper for the local P&C where the effort required to manage can be provided between eating the 1st sausage on the BBQ and the first beer of the afternoon.

 

However, in our environment I do not accept that the board will have either the skills or the time to deal with the day to day activities required. I mean we have a staff of employees that couldn't comply with CASA's requirements and they worked fulltime, what hope for a bunch of Major lookalikes jumping in and solving that mess. (No negative connotation meant against Ross.....)

 

Its my view that if we require our board members to manage the organisation on a daily basis we will fail. They may under legislation be called a board of management but they must in my opinion act as a board of directors. They set direction and then ensure, through others, that effort expended by the GM and staff are aligned and directed as they require. If progress is insufficient then its their job to provide the necessary resources that the GM should be alerting them are required to achieve the outcomes sought in the timeline specified. They generally shouldn't be doing work themselves. In my view long term that line may well be grey rather than black and white, but until we learn what a black and white line looks like and how to instinctively realise which side of that line they are to work making it grey is just likely to lead to more of the past.

 

I believe that the board (of directors) establishing strategy and high level projects for achievement and setting up a structure that looks corporate and smells corporate is exactly what is needed in our organisation that in the absence of the incorporated association structure, would be set up as a for profit company.

 

Failures of the past that I, you and others have jumped on, were IMHO about people trying to manage what they were manifestly unsuited to manage. A treasurer that wouldn't know P&L from balance sheet if he fell over it, a president that felt he wasn't first among equals but simply first! and a secretary that used the constitution when it was advantageous to him and tossed it out when not. We still don't have a 5 year strategy as I understand it. We cant expect the GM to do all that he should until we resource him as he needs.

 

We do today , however have a GM that is trying to manage as a GM (CEO) should and is clearly identifying to the board when they stray into his area of responsibility. That to me appears to be an improvement.

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree Andy. hope our new GM? doesn't give up and power to the board who are trying to sort it out. Nev