RA-Aus Structure

[DWF]

Here are some thoughts on a new structure for our association.

 

The main idea is to separate the Management functions from the Membership functions.

 

The management would be overseen by a skills based board of 5 to 7 Directors, who are not necessarily members of the association but, who have governance expertise and experience in running an organisation of our size. The function of management is to provide the service the members require and those the association has agreed to provide under its Deed of Agreement with CASA.

 

It may be useful for the management functions of the association become the responsibility of a separate entity that is a wholly owned subsidiary of RA-Aus. - Just a thought.

 

The diagram below does not have a lot of detail yet but should be enough to start discussion and explore the idea(s).

 

DWF

 

Proposed Structure dwf201403.pdf

 

Proposed Structure dwf201403.pdf

 

Proposed Structure dwf201403.pdf

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Not being a member, I have no opinion to express; however I would point out that it is essential that at least several of the members of the management group have an extensive and current knowledge of the Civil Aviation Regulations. RAA operates in the field of aviation; knowledge of that field is essential.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I would also observe that it is pretty futile designing a structure, unless you have first defined what it has to do. First, make a list of the tasks that the RAA has to perform, and put a priority against the items in the list. From what I have seen on this Forum, very few of the contributors appear to have any real idea of what should be on that list, or what the priorities ought to be.

 

Once you have the list sorted out, THEN you can start to design a structure to perform those functions.

 

 

[DWF]

Not being a member, I have no opinion to express; however I would point out that it is essential that at least several of the members of the management group have an extensive and current knowledge of the Civil Aviation Regulations. RAA operates in the field of aviation; knowledge of that field is essential.

G'day Dafydd

 

I agree that the directors of any organisation should be familiar with the regulatory environment in which they operate and that, in the case of the RA-Aus board, they should include or have ready access to people who have extensive knowledge of CARs, however I do not envisage a board of aviation lawyers.

 

I would expect that the CEO would be an/the executive director on the board and should be able to provide most of the required Regulatory input - assisted by the Ops and Tech managers.

 

A board should not need to have a detailed nuts and bolts knowledge of aviation to function properly- in fact it may be a hindrance at times - by getting bogged down in detail.

 

 

 

The job of the board is to set policy, ensure compliance with ALL appropriate legislation (including accounting, corporate, OH&S, CARs and the RA-Aus constitution) and monitor performance.

 

DWF

 

 

[turboplanner]

Before you get too excited and start the seventh version of this, talking about Directors etc, suggest you first read up on the Associations Incoporation Act for the ACT, and the RAA Constitution, and the 2010 CASA documentation which spells out the duties of the board of management of RAA.

 

 

[DWF]

I would also observe that it is pretty futile designing a structure, unless you have first defined what it has to do. First, make a list of the tasks that the RAA has to perform, and put a priority against the items in the list. From what I have seen on this Forum, very few of the contributors appear to have any real idea of what should be on that list, or what the priorities ought to be.Once you have the list sorted out, THEN you can start to design a structure to perform those functions.

G'day again Dafydd

 

Thank you for your comments and opinions. I am pleased someone has responded to my efforts, although I had hoped for something a little more constructive or alternative.

 

 

 

I had assumed that most people would have got a good idea of what the tasks RAAus has to perform from my original post here and those on another thread. It appears I was wrong.

 

 

 

As I have said elsewhere, I see a review of the RAAus structure as the second step after the preparation of a STRATEGIC PLAN.

 

A Strategic Plan should specify what the organisation wants/needs to do and when, with what priorities, to achieve its objectives.

 

 

 

A Strategic Plan is something I had hoped to see prepared and distributed for comment some considerable time ago. It should have been one of their first priorities.

 

 

 

As far as I can see, the whole focus of the Board and management has been on fighting the bushfires resulting from the CASA audits. Very little apparent effort has been devoted to keeping members informed about what is happening (is anything?) or providing guidance, education or other member services. The majority of the tasks currently performed by RAAus result from the need to comply with the Deed of Agreement with CASA. My proposed structure is designed to ensure the Board operates professionally and efficiently, management has clear tasks and objectives (and is able to achieve them) and that the members are able to contribute to the running of the organisation (should they so desire), are kept in the information loop and are provided with educational and social services.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Before you get too excited and start the seventh version of this, talking about Directors etc, suggest you first read up on the Associations Incoporation Act for the ACT, and the RAA Constitution, and the 2010 CASA documentation which spells out the duties of the board of management of RAA.

Precisely.

 

 

[DWF]

Before you get too excited and start the seventh version of this, talking about Directors etc, suggest you first read up on the Associations Incoporation Act for the ACT, and the RAA Constitution, and the 2010 CASA documentation which spells out the duties of the board of management of RAA.

Unlike many other members, I suspect, I have read these documents.

 

I am not a lawyer, so I may be corrected on this, but I do not see any insurmountable impediment in any of these documents to the implementation of a structure similar to that I have suggested.

 

 

 

As has been suggested by others, if the ATC Act causes problems then there are a number of other jurisdictions that provide a more conducive legislative environment.

 

 

 

The RA-Aus Constitution is ours to amend as we see fit provided it complies with the appropriate Act.

 

 

 

The Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook 2010 does not preclude the proposed structure. Indeed the proposed structure creates an environment more conducive to implementing the requirements of the Handbook. The current structure, or those working within it, has not served the association well in this respect.

 

 

 

You [collective noun] say it won't work but no one has given even one specific instance or reference as to why.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Unlike many other members, I suspect, I have read these documents.

 

I am not a lawyer, so I may be corrected on this, but I do not see any insurmountable impediment in any of these documents to the implementation of a structure similar to that I have suggested.

 

 

 

As has been suggested by others, if the ATC Act causes problems then there are a number of other jurisdictions that provide a more conducive legislative environment.

 

 

 

The RA-Aus Constitution is ours to amend as we see fit provided it complies with the appropriate Act.

 

 

 

The Sport Aviation Self-Administration Handbook 2010 does not preclude the proposed structure. Indeed the proposed structure creates an environment more conducive to implementing the requirements of the Handbook. The current structure, or those working within it, has not served the association well in this respect.

 

 

 

You [collective noun] say it won't work but no one has given even one specific instance or reference as to why.

 

 

 

DWF

No, I did not say it won't work; what I said was that the job should design the structure, not vice-versa. What you propose may well work - but it's starting at the wrong end.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Unlike many other members, I suspect, I have read these documents.

That's all I was concerned about. There are still plenty of contributions from many people hidden away on this site, a lot which would be of great value if implemented, but unfortunately some of the best, when people were less weary four years ago were deleted.

 

Good luck with it, and thanks for the reply.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

DWF, I fully support your initiative to discuss the organisational structure of RAAus.

 

I also agree 100% with Dafydd's suggestion that in order to determine an appropriate structure for the organisation, there should firstly be a clear and comprehensive list of the aims/objectives of the organisation. Although there is a list of objectives for the organisation stated on its website, these are broad based objectives. In my opinion, these objectives should be reviewed for completeness, and should then be broken down into further detail so that a comprehensive and detailed list of objectives has been formulated.

 

Once we as an organisation know in detail what we need to achieve, then an appropriate structure for the organisation can be determined that will be best suited to achieve the objectives.

 

I suggest that before going too far into a thread about the structure of the organisation, that a thread be started where participants can suggest what the aims and objectives of the organisation should be. Naturally, these aims/objectives will reflect all relevant regulatory material applicable to our operation as well as all delegations imparted to the organisation by CASA and guidance material provided to us by CASA. As well as the "regulatory" imposed aims/objectives, there will also be the aims/objectives appropriate to the "promotion" aspect of recreational aviation, ie to encourage recreational aviation activities, to represent the membership to CASA etc..

 

If the members of this forum can collectively contribute suggestions as to the aims and objectives for the organisation, I feel that given the many knowledgeable and dedicated posters that we have on the forum, the Board of RAAus could gain some valuable support in drafting a new and comprehensive list of aims/objectives for the organisation.

 

Personally and based on some of the objectives that I feel are appropriate to the organisation, I feel that the structure should incorporate (at least) two divisions: I shall term them "Regulatory" and "Promotion".

 

The Regulatory division would be exactly that, ie dedicated to all functions imposed on the organisation by CASA regulations or delegations. So licensing, registration, etc. would come under this division. This division would be fully staffed by permanent and salaried employees.

 

The Promotion division would look after things such as NatFly, the magazine, representation to CASA on behalf of the members etc.. This division could be headed by a permanent and salaried employee, supported by volunteers similar to the way it is now. This is where I see the current regional representatives fitting in, rather than being on the "Board". In addition to their promotional role, the regional representatives could, through their designated representative, make policy recommendations to the Board for their consideration, with any policy decisions being made by the Board.

 

Once a comprehensive list of aims/objectives has been established, each objective could be allocated to the appropriate area of the organisation to achieve. The usual project management tools would be utilised, ie allocation of responsibilities, use of key performance indicators etc..

 

My final suggestion (for now) is that an organisation such as RAAus should have an effective quality system. We need to internally monitor our own performance. It would be better if we discovered our own shortcomings and address them before CASA found them. I feel that a dedicated Quality person is a necessity within our organisation.

 

Dave

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

FV has made an eminently sensible suggestion; however I suspect that when one scratches any deeper than the immediate surface, in the "regulatory" area, what one will find is another layer of questions - and not much in the way of meaningful answers.

 

For example, in the area of ongoing airworthiness, both the RAA Technical manual - as I recall it - and the Civil Aviation Regulations - state that the ultimate responsibility for airworthiness rests with the aircraft owner. So far, so good. Beyond that point, the CARS go into very explicit detail as to what CASA requires; but those regulations are in Sections 4 and 4A of the CARS, from which RAA aircraft are exempt. Those exemptions are made under the condition that the aircraft are maintained in accordance with the RAA Technical manual. So, one must look to the RAA manual in regard to those aspects that are covered by exemption; and to the Regulations in regard to those matters from which RAA aircraft are not exempt.

 

For example, what does the RAA TM require in regard to periodic inspections? How does this compare with (a) CARS Parts 4 & 4A? How does it compare with (b) what other recreational aviation bodies - e.g. the GFA - require in this area? What should RAA do to monitor that what its manual specifies is in fact carried out? What does RAA actually do in this regard? What records should be kept, to allow this to be audited? What records are in fact kept?

 

In regard to aircraft weight and balance, this comes under CAR 235 and CAO 100.7 - and RAA aircraft are NOT exempt from these requirements. What should RAA do to monitor that what these regulations require is in fact carried out? What does RAA actually do in this regard? What records should be kept, to allow this to be audited? What records are in fact kept?

 

What are CASA's views on RAA's responsibility in regard to such matters - and many more, in this area?

 

I cannot answer these questions - and I suspect very few RAA members even wish to understand the questions. But they need to be asked, and answered, before one can design a structure to deal with the issues that arise.

 

My personal perception - which may be incorrect - is that RAA - and the AUF before it - has always sought to avoid any responsibility in these areas. Is this valid - and if so, is it satisfactory? I very much prefer the way the GFA approaches these matters.

 

These are NOT matters that one can brush aside as being the responsibility of the Technical Manager; unless the requirements are explicitly defined, how can he "manage" them? Precisely what is required of an L2 in regard to periodic maintenance? How does RAA monitor this? Are the instructions in the RAA Technical Manual sufficiently explicit? Are they being correctly applied? These responsibilities do not stop at Fyshwick or wherever; they involve every aircraft owner and every L2.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In regard to aircraft weight and balance, this comes under CAR 235 and CAO 100.7 - and RAA aircraft are NOT exempt from these requirements. What should RAA do to monitor that what these regulations require is in fact carried out? What does RAA actually do in this regard? What records should be kept, to allow this to be audited? What records are in fact kept?

That's only about one six year incarceration away. After that Performance and Operations will be a well traveled subject requiring very little audit correction.

 

 

[Oscar]

Whilst ever the Board is comprised of members who are elected on a geographic rather than skills basis, its composition is - fundamentally - the result of a popularity contest.

 

I mean no disrespect by that; I think we have some excellent Board members who bring considerable skill and experience to the organisation, but in terms of getting the best possible people into the most useful position for them to serve the interests of the organisation, it has to be recognised that the whole basis for election by geography makes it a bit of a lucky dip: there is no guarantee that in any particular Board we will get the spread and depth of expertise that RAA needs at the helm. (and let's be realistic here - we see EXACTLY the same syndrome in governments of all persuasions from Local Councils upwards).

 

Since RAA's primary responsibility is for the operation of the organisation according to federal regulations, there is no advantage for any area to be gained by having a local Board Member. It's not as if the Board can adopt regulations in force in one area to the detriment of owners/operators in another area.

 

As has been suggested above, the first step is for the RAA to determine what it must do well and identify the skill set for each critical Board position with sufficient definition to allow prospective Board members to describe their field(s) of expertise as part of their candidacy statement, and for members then to vote to hopefully achieve the best-skilled Board that can be assembled.

 

Regional representation should be encouraged to provide an Advisory Panel - a conduit for information going upwards from local areas to the Board and vice-versa. Local area representatives can play a large part in promoting the interests of their RAA membership to local administrations etc. - I am thinking here of things like fighting for retention of airfields and suchlike. The value of having an enthusiastic, active local representative of the organisation keeping an eye on developments in the local region and being on hand to explain, advertise, campaign etc. the cause of RAA should in no way be dismissed - but should not detract from the best possible governance we can achieve from member resources.

 

The vast majority of the work that needs to be done by RAA is deeply technical in nature, and the fine details of that work is the business of the 'Managers' of the various disciplines: Technical, Operations,and of course, Administration itself (financial and corporate). The Board provides (or should provide) strategic direction for and general oversight of, these functions. To do that effectively, the Board needs people with the necessary skills and understanding of the subjects to be able to make the necessary decisions and evaluations. That we get Board members who have those skills should not be a matter of luck in the selection of candidates on a regional basis but a very conscious decision by members based on the information provided by the candidates of their suitability, drawing from the whole membership base and unfettered by the circumstances of their location.

 

 

[jetjr]

Agree Oscar but with election based contest and terribly low voting numbers, you cant control every one selecting similar candidates

 

Not always are there many options in candidates

 

I agree in needing employed specialist management with elected board oversight. Will mean more paid staff but get faster onground results.

 

Having skills is one thing but not being able to get it across well and in a timely way makes the skills largely wasted.

 

Additionally, highly skilled specialists sometimes have trouble integrating info into larger picture and compromise.

 

I know this because we employ quite a few brilliant people but can be ineffective or cant work well in team. Needs a wrangler.

 

 

[DWF]

Whilst ever the Board is comprised of members who are elected on a geographic rather than skills basis, its composition is - fundamentally - the result of a popularity contest.I mean no disrespect by that; I think we have some excellent Board members who bring considerable skill and experience to the organisation, but in terms of getting the best possible people into the most useful position for them to serve the interests of the organisation, it has to be recognised that the whole basis for election by geography makes it a bit of a lucky dip: there is no guarantee that in any particular Board we will get the spread and depth of expertise that RAA needs at the helm. (and let's be realistic here - we see EXACTLY the same syndrome in governments of all persuasions from Local Councils upwards).

 

Since RAA's primary responsibility is for the operation of the organisation according to federal regulations, there is no advantage for any area to be gained by having a local Board Member. It's not as if the Board can adopt regulations in force in one area to the detriment of owners/operators in another area.

 

As has been suggested above, the first step is for the RAA to determine what it must do well and identify the skill set for each critical Board position with sufficient definition to allow prospective Board members to describe their field(s) of expertise as part of their candidacy statement, and for members then to vote to hopefully achieve the best-skilled Board that can be assembled.

 

Regional representation should be encouraged to provide an Advisory Panel - a conduit for information going upwards from local areas to the Board and vice-versa. Local area representatives can play a large part in promoting the interests of their RAA membership to local administrations etc. - I am thinking here of things like fighting for retention of airfields and suchlike. The value of having an enthusiastic, active local representative of the organisation keeping an eye on developments in the local region and being on hand to explain, advertise, campaign etc. the cause of RAA should in no way be dismissed - but should not detract from the best possible governance we can achieve from member resources.

 

The vast majority of the work that needs to be done by RAA is deeply technical in nature, and the fine details of that work is the business of the 'Managers' of the various disciplines: Technical, Operations,and of course, Administration itself (financial and corporate). The Board provides (or should provide) strategic direction for and general oversight of, these functions. To do that effectively, the Board needs people with the necessary skills and understanding of the subjects to be able to make the necessary decisions and evaluations. That we get Board members who have those skills should not be a matter of luck in the selection of candidates on a regional basis but a very conscious decision by members based on the information provided by the candidates of their suitability, drawing from the whole membership base and unfettered by the circumstances of their location.

Thank you Oscar. That is (almost) exactly what I have been trying to say.

 

The responsibilities and liabilities of the body overseeing the Management/Regulatory functions of RA-Aus are considerably greater than the average community association and so require board members with the requisite skills and experience.

 

The current RAAus means of selecting Board members does not guarantee or even make likely the selection of appropriately qualified people.

 

Board members should meet a set of selection criteria and be appointed on skills/merit. This would mean that at least some of the Board members may need to be recruited form outside RAAus. I realise this may be difficult to achieve under our present structure which is why I have suggested the one included with post #1 above.

 

There is still very much the need for the members and their elected representatives to be in ultimate control of the organisation - even more so than is currently the case - but running the Management/Regulatory functions should be given to those with the skills, experience and enthusiasm to do so.

 

 

 

We need to start thinking outside the box a bit.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[frank marriott]

M.E.R.I.T. : Mates Elevated Regardless of Intelligence or Training

 

 

[DWF]

You're a cynic Frank.

 

OK. Replace "M.E.R.I.T" with ability.

 

 

[facthunter]

What GOD is going to judge who gods helpers are? IF we can't find seven intelligent co-operative people who can work as a team then dog help us. Expert advice can be called on when and IF required. Being able to select by election, has to be close to what one would want, as a principle, if starting from scratch. IF we start VETTING who can be eligible we are really opening up a can of worms.

 

As Winston Churchill said "Democracy has to be the worst system apart from all the others" Our biggest problem is APATHY. Hardly anyone bothers to VOTE. If it was not available, then you might wake up to what you lost. Yeah I have heard all the excuses before. "I don't know anyone, They all say the same sort of things when they want to be elected etc". I've had to ask around in the past when I wasn't sure of some candidate. Yeah and I was wrong about Steve Runciman, but long term it will work , and I would suggest it is now. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Why do we need to change RAAus?

 

Is it appropriate for people on this forum to try to take over RAAus? Would it not be better to talk to RAAus on their web site and by email.

 

If the situation is so dire why dont those posting here put up for positions on the board, rather than the constant whingeing and whining that has been going on for years.

 

 

[DWF]

Why do we need to change RAAus?Is it appropriate for people on this forum to try to take over RAAus? Would it not be better to talk to RAAus on their web site and by email.

If the situation is so dire why dont those posting here put up for positions on the board, rather than the constant whingeing and whining that has been going on for years.

Yenn, the world around us is changing. If we don't change and keep up we will be left behind.

 

Let's face it, the current (or very recent past) RAAus has not served us well.

 

 

 

As far as I can see there is no opportunity for members to make any comment on the RAAus web site. I would like to see a member's forum there as well.

 

 

 

A healthy discussion/debate of ideas here provides members (and others) with an opportunity to share their views and consider alternative points of view and options. I certainly don't share some of the opinions expressed here but it is interesting to see what and how others think.

 

 

 

I take umbrage at my posts being referred to as "constant whingeing and whining". In most cases they are carefully considered and hopefully constructive. I do agree however that some posters seem more able to knock and decry the posts of others than offer any constructive thoughts.

 

DWF

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Why do we need to change RAAus?Is it appropriate for people on this forum to try to take over RAAus? Would it not be better to talk to RAAus on their web site and by email.

If the situation is so dire why dont those posting here put up for positions on the board, rather than the constant whingeing and whining that has been going on for years.

This thread is becoming repetitive; it's going over ground that has been plowed many times before.

I will watch to see what dedicated and knowledgeable individuals like Trevor Bange can achieve in the environment of a Board, whose overall makeup is such that I have very little confidence in its collective ability. I hope - but do not expect - that I will be agreeably surprised. I can imagine very little so frustrating as being a member of such a disparate group; anybody with real ability would, I expect, find it a soul-destroying experience. I also imagine I am not the only one to take that view of the RAA management structure. The Associations Acts, so far as I have experienced them, seem to be designed around something like a football club - i.e. a sporting activity that everybody understands in depth, and for which there is not a complex set of highly technical constraints embedded in legislation.

 

Jet Jr talks of employing specialist management to work under the elected Board. This arrangement is almost inescapable given the constraints of the various Associations Acts, from what I have seen of them. However, it is not in the least likely to be an attractive employment scenario for any really competent specialist; RAA is very fortunate just now to have the services of Darren Barnfield; the simple fact is that a truly competent specialist will not for long tolerate being muddled about by an elected Board whose collective wisdom is far inferior to his own. Just now, one would suppose that the situation is such that the Board is almost certainly not likely to interfere with Darren whilst he tries to sort out the mess; but once he does so and it starts to run again, how long to you suppose it will be before "strategic goals" become active interference?

 

The simple fact is, that an elected Board of fundamentally non-expert people, trying to steer technical experts who are mainly employed to perform a boring repetetive task, whose principal function is the earning of revenue, not the promotion of efficiency or safety, is not a recipe for a successful organisation. The RAA TM has authority solely under the RAA exemptions; this makes him a powerless puppet of the Board. By contrast, the GFA Technical managers have delegated authority under the Civil Aviation Regulations. Their authority has the weight of law behind it.

 

This is why you need to change the RAA. Because it will not work in the long term.

 

 

[Oscar]

The difference between a cynic and a pessimist is about one degree of separation: a cynic says to an optimist: 'yeah, as if', while a pessimist says ' 'No way'. Both operate from the basis of observation of real life. The travails of the RAA in recent times make being either cynical or pessimistic about its ability to sort itself out by far the easiest path by comparison to being an optimist.

 

Voter apathy is a metric that suggests that the vast majority of RAA members simply want to be able to fly under a set of rules and regulations that they can accept as reasonable. Let's not ignore the message here: I haven't done the number-crunching, but I suggest that less than 20% of the total number of RAA members have sufficient concern about who represents them to bother to vote. They just want to pay whatever it takes to keep being able to fly their aircraft around, and all the heated discussion about 'democracy' in the organisation, 'home field' and 'HQ office location' etc. - is immaterial. If a purely commercial organisation appeared that could ensure that registration was completed legally so they can continue to fly, they couldn't, quite frankly, be buggered to worry about all these peripheral issues.

 

And, to be honest, that position is very attractive to me. If RAA were to outsource the whole registration thing to a service provider operating under a guarantee of performance for a competitive cost, that would meet the majority of my personal requirements for keeping my aircraft in the air. The KPI here is a cost and time-efficient service that ensures compliance with all necessary regulations in force. Those regulations are (almost) completely outside RAA control; the only RAA-generated regulations (such as current membership status) are an overlay that is mostly (possibly all?) a result of the RAA governance and corporate structure.

 

More experienced RAA members can improve my understanding here, but I think that about the only regulation that pertains to Tech. or Ops. matters that is specifically RAA-imposed that is NOT a result of RAA corporate requirements is the minimum height over public events? ( a damn sensible move that helps diminish the 'public nuisance' aspect of our operations that has seen other recreational activities - noticeably jet-ski use - increasingly banned from general public areas by the uprising of an infuriated populace).

 

In fact, the whole idea that the Tech. and Ops. functions of RAA should be ultimately oversighted by and responsible to the Board may just possibly be a case of RAA trying to do the right thing in the wrong way. As Dafydd has suggested above, the current arrangement effectively puts the Managers of both areas in the position of having to serve two masters. (Some would say three masters, if one subscribes to the more extreme view of some members that the Board actually fails to properly represent the Members..)

 

However, I also see the operation of an RAA-class aircraft being impacted by other considerations, including access to airfields and airspace, training and endorsement and owner maintenance. We do need a controlling body that fights for the rights we need.

 

If we were to look at a model that, in crude terms, accepts that the 'technical' activities resulting from externally-imposed regulations (Tech. and Ops.) operate in a box defined by the regulations in force, and that the 'governance and administration' activities operate in another box that is a product of the RAA structure, it might help to bring clarity.

 

There is a considerable difference between the role of, let us say, the Tech Manager in the current situation being employed to perform a task set by the Board viz. 'keep the aircraft flying legally and safely', and the same position being employed to 'ensure the requirements imposed on us are met'. If I understand it correctly, the GFA operating under the latter situation seems to have puttered along pretty effectively. I presume that the GFA Board (or whatever is their governing body) acts as an auditor that the performance of the Tech Manager equivalent is adequate, not as the arbiter of HOW that function is to be performed.

 

In the RAA case, however (as I see it) the Board is expected to be the arbiter of how the function is to be performed and the mess starting in 2012 exemplifies that the RAA Board does not always have the necessary skills to do that.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The GFA has a Manual of Standard Procedures, in two parts - Ops and airworthiness. Both are subject to CASA scrutiny. Not that dissimilar to the RAA, on the surface.

 

However the GFA operates under delegated authority from CASA, whereas the RAA does not. Certain specified officers in GFA have prescribed authority under the regulations, and are therefore "agents of CASA" in applying that authority. They do not use that authority lightly. The Glider Inspectors who perform the annual inspection and issue maintenance releases do not do so lightly either; these positions carry legal responsibility.

 

The wording of the MOSP has to be acceptable to CASA before it will renew the GFA Instrument of Delegation.

 

So the GFA, whilst having some exemptions in CAO 95.4, still retains the mechanism of the Certificate of Airworthiness and the Maintenance Release against a prescribed annual inspection. However it uses a different set of procedures to those prescribed in CARs 4 & 4A, to issue them. It requires tight control of aircraft weight & balance, and loading - after all, in a glider, the pilot is the noseweight. It has an active system of keeping track of those things; and it keeps auditable records.

 

The GFA Board is mainly involved in the "promotional" aspects, and of course in keeping GFA solvent. Gliding activities are more focussed on competition flying, and flying training. Gliding can be effectively controlled by peer pressure, via the club system, because the clubs have a monopoly on the means of launching - apart from motor gliders; but one must be a member of a club to hold GFA membership, and the rating required to operate a motor-glider independently must come via the club CFI. The system is somewhat parochial as a consequence; but by and large it works adequately.

 

GFA has also been overhauling its procedures to bring them into line with the new regulations, and to prepare the GFA for CASR Part 149; the MOSP is undergoing substantial change.

 

So the principal difference between GFA and RAA is that the GFA recognises the need to modify its procedures in order to function; i.e. it re-designs itself as necessary, as an ongoing process; whereas RAA seems incapable of comprehending any necessity to do likewise. The GFA Technical Officers are NOT a primary means whereby GFA earns its income; their function is to comply with the requirements laid down in the MOSP, which is wholly designed around safety. It earns its income from membership fees and from the issue of annual inspection paperwork; when a glider comes due for its annual (and also for additional inspections at ten year intervals) it owner must purchase from GFA the inspection schedule, which comes with all the Airworthiness Directives applicable to the type. That must be filled out and signed-off by the Glider Inspector, and scanned and returned (in electronic form) to GFA, along with a scan of the Maintenance Release.

 

The GFA is an association of State associations; each State Association has its regional technical officers for both operations and airworthiness, and by this breakdown, those technical officers can move around in their respective areas and keep an eye on what is going on. The Technical Officers have an annual get-together to ensure consistency of standards, etc, and this also results in fine-tuning of the MOSP.

 

So the GFA MOSP is a living document by which people conduct their day to day flying activities; it's not a piece of paper you have to have in a drawer somewhere to keep the regulator out of your hair. The culture is not one of jackboots & whips; it's very laid-back - but it's one of observance, not of ignorance. Peer pressure is not such an effective mechanism for RAA, because one can operate quite independently. So one can in GA. But in GA, people do not try to pretend that the regulations do not exist, whereas in RAA that seems to be the case more often than not.

 

The original set-up of the AUF / GFA of dispensing with airworthiness certificates and maintenance releases, and instead trying to tie all that to an annual registration (like a motor vehicle) is the root cause of a lot of the RAA's problems, in my view; motor vehicles are just about 100% compliant with the Australian Design Rules. Cars do not have any real equivalent to Service Bulletins and Airworthiness Directives.

 

The RAA has to deal with a broad spectrum ranging from scratch-designed homebuilts through all stages to factory-built Type-Certificated aircraft. By contrast, the majority of gliders are Type-Certificated factory-built aircraft, with extensive maintenance manuals. So there are significant differences between the GFA world and the RAA World; and therefore the modus operandi must also differ. However the GFA system works pretty well, whereas the RAA one needs major surgery. It's in danger of bleeding to death before the operation, because the necessary repairs go a lot deeper than seems to be generally understood. The RAA system DOES need major change - and it isn't happening, as far as I can see.

 

 

[DWF]

Dafydd, how does GFA handle pilot licensing/certification?