New CEO

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Can't agree with your first two points Volksy. If you don't understand a fair bit about aviation the general office structure won't do it. Costmeyer found that out. You wouldn't be able to answer the phone to many people who ring without looking silly. Nev

 

Depends on what you'd class as the CEO's job really. In my view RA-Aus is an administrative organisation. It employs technical officers for the technical side but its primary purpose is to keep the documents in order and ensure we're operating within CASA's mandate. I simply do not think you need aviation experience in order to perform these simple and basic functions.With a board consisting of experienced pilots and builders and qualified technical staff already in the organisation someone with some simple administrative nous is what's clearly missing in my view.

I agree with you both, but Volksy first. If it were up to me (and clearly it isnt and wont be) I would employ a CEO who was a CEO first and foremost. If he was aviation experienced/aware that could be used to differentiate him from another candidate of similar ranking. In otherwords I'd have a capable and experience CEO in preference to a capable and experienced aviator if push came to shove....... If everyone understands their limitations and covers the gaps with capable staff around them then what is it that isnt possible?

 

The explainations given that Robbie exited stage left as a function of not understanding aviation was as I understand it from those who have spoken to the parties at the time first hand (so 2nd hand from me) window dressing/ gross over simlification and that it was his observations of basic things done vastly wrong on our side and the CASA side of the fence(including how little CASA was paying RAA for doing so much), and his lack of fear in telling those on the CASA side of the fence that fact in great detail.....which resulted in a quick change in strategy (Tactics would be more accurate). As is often the Aussie way we went for a quick pendulum swing to the other extreme....that's worked well for us.....Oh hang on......

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree that you don't need the worlds best aviator, but to be curently flying an U/L would be an advantage. ( Not essential, but an advantage). You know what you are talking about when you're currently active. You would need to be across all aspects of the aviation environment.Not necessarily qualified but very familiar with how they work

 

The other aspect is ability to manage the office, duties, of each person, allocating tasks etc , Prioritising, Scheduling and meeting targets deadlines. that could be done by a good office manager Probably by an accountant/law type There is a lot of LAW involved in aviation., particularly in the administration of it.

 

So there you go Just find a reasonably qualified GA /U/L pilot who has a fresh law /accountancy skills folio who can keep a group of women in line and get on with you blokes and work with the board and who will work for about half of what the job should pay and away you go. Age about 42. Nev

 

 

[dodo]

You got my age wrong by a few years.

 

And I prefer my income/leisure balance the way it is: I would do the job for the money they pay, but I like my weekends and my holidays,

 

dodo

 

 

[coljones]

So there you go Just find a reasonably qualified GA /U/L pilot who has a fresh law /accountancy skills folio who can keep a group of women in line and get on with you blokes and work with the board and who will work for about half of what the job should pay and away you go. Age about 42

Why do women need to be kept in line? Why should anyone work for half what the job is worth (or should pay)? I am not sure about the age bit either.

 

We as an association need to review how we do business. The executive needs a vice-president or two to spread the load and cover the other executive positions when gaps (like work and holidays) occur and provide a second sight on a range of functions (like the accounts and budgets - I noticed that the Treasurer was talking about annual surpluses (profits) when he should have talked about free reserves - is all the cash in the bank (a big number) sufficient, do we know the extent of the rainy day or do we accrue because it seems like a good idea?).

 

In the short term the size of the board does not trouble me while we ruminate about electorates and how members can feel happy enough to vote and enough people are prepared to put their hands up so there is a bit of variety.

 

One characteristic required of the CEO is the ability to take an argument to the top levels of government and the public service and a board prepared to back them.

 

Keep well,

 

Col

 

 

[dazza 38]

I agree with you both, but Volksy first. If it were up to me (and clearly it isnt and wont be) I would employ a CEO who was a CEO first and foremost. If he was aviation experienced/aware that could be used to differentiate him from another candidate of similar ranking. In otherwords I'd have a capable and experience CEO in preference to a capable and experienced aviator if push came to shove....... If everyone understands their limitations and covers the gaps with capable staff around them then what is it that isnt possible?[The explainations given that Robbie exited stage left as a function of not understanding aviation was as I understand it from those who have spoken to the parties at the time first hand (so 2nd hand from me) window dressing/ gross over simlification and that it was his observations of basic things done vastly wrong on our side and the CASA side of the fence(including how little CASA was paying RAA for doing so much), and his lack of fear in telling those on the CASA side of the fence that fact in great detail.....which resulted in a quick change in strategy (Tactics would be more accurate). As is often the Aussie way we went for a quick pendulum swing to the other extreme....that's worked well for us.....Oh hang on......}

 

Andy

Sounds as though Robbie was on the right track. CASA should be paying RAA a lot more than they do. Since they dont, we have to pay $185 a year for the privilege to fly, when GA guys don't have to member of anything. Hence they don't have to pay membership fees.

 

 

[68volksy]

I think the job title of CEO should be dropped immediately - especially from these discussions. It really gives the wrong impression for a job that is first and foremost about administration. It's all about the paperwork at the moment. Forget all this blowing wind up our skirts by wanting someone "to take on CASA". That's not the job. The job is to keep the paperwork inline with orders from CASA. Once this is sorted out then, and only then, should we be thinking about making wholesale changes to the sport. Keep it simple!

 

Get yourself a great administration team together with support from the board (and the members!) and the administrative stuff would be a walk in the park. Add some support from technical experts and bob's your uncle you have a fully-functioning self-governing organisation. Anyone thick enough to want to "Take on CASA" can go join AOPA!

 

 

[poteroo]

When we had a Shire Clerk running the local council - their remuneration and conditions were acceptable to just about every ratepayer. Once Local Government adopted the grandiose title of CEO - the remuneration has become quite disconnected from their actual function, they expect terms and conditions better than the Minister for Local Government, and they sue the Council if their feelings are hurt by a nasty Councillor asking embarrassing questions.

 

I'm with 68volksy on this. Yes, as Facthunter says - it would be a real help to have some aviation skills, but I don't believe we need anyone with the flying qualifications that Steve Tizzard brought with him. I believe that our whole society is afflicted by this overqualification disease. You don't need an ATPL to run a small flying school, just as you don't need a degree to competently run a business. An associate of mine, who is a well up scientist, recently sought a laboratory technician - and was swamped with applicants holding PhD's, MSc's and every kind of bachelor degree....... all unrequired for the job. He gave it to one of the lesser qualified people who was thankful for the job, and wouldn't treat it as a holding point to jump off asap. Our society is becoming choked with too many overqualified people for the available positions. And puleeeze don't mention that dreaded statement of raising the bar.

 

Now that's off my chest...... happy days,

 

 

[Bandit12]

Someone with administration skills and the ability to troubleshoot a mess and come up with solutions is what is needed. One of my family members has done just that as COO of several large companies in the food industry, and he has no tertiary qualifications and didn't even finish high school. But that said, don't discount the people who have an alphabet after their name either - in my experience there are incompetents at all levels of education and experience.

 

 

[jetjr]

Need to be clear what the priorties are

 

Running RAA organisation admin and internal politics, Managing CASA, Handling legal and insurance issues, Furthering and promoting RAA cause generally

 

 

[Yenn]

jetjr.

 

I agree with you about running the organisation, but as directed by the board members. Managing CASA leaves me wondering how he can handle CASA. They are the body that makes the rules which we have to comply with. If previous employees stretched the rules, that may have been the root cause of the problems. Now we have to get them sorted. Handling legal and insurance issues comes down to the board making policies and the CEO carrying them out.

 

What we need is someone to sort out the mess with CASA and then keep it all running smoothly. It seems to me that steve Tizzard was not the right person to be CEO, but he would have been very good at making policy decisions, which is the job of the board members.