dodo

Too stinking hot to try to find and organise the mags, but this is what I found to hand October 2012 Pres report: Second paragraph on p7 (verbatim and complete) : "The original CASA audit took place in November 2011 and two follow up audits in April and July. At the end of the last follow up audit there were a number of comments made by CASA, the main one being "While RA-Aus has developed a number of new procedural forms and processes to facilitate aircraft registrations, there remain several outstanding issues to be addressed to finalise the November, 2011 audit." CASA has also recommended a follow up audit at the end of October. This can partly be attributed to a number of factors: the absence of a Tech manager for a period of time and the reluctance of some manufacturers to work with us to resolve these issues. Following a discussion with the full board and CEO, my intention is to get the issues resolved as soon as possible. This may include a face to face meeting with the manufacturers involved. Tech talk: p27, (condensed and summarised by me). Adam refers to a number of registration issues (amateur built a/c built overseas can't be registered as amateur built if sold ready made. Neither can factory built be re-registered as amateur built. SLSA aircraft require a special cert or airworthiness. No mention of audit,but this is almost certainly connected. September 2012 Pres report: Seventh para on p7 (verbatim and complete): I have reported a number of times about problems we have had with aircraft registrations and some documentation in our files. Unfortunately, some of the problems continue, which is very frustrating for some aircraft manufacturers and owners. However, I can say we are doing all we can to resolve these issues in as short a time as possible." Tech talk: n/a (it was all about flutter) August 2012: nothing in either pres or tech columns re registrations or audits. EDIT - I have just found the other mags. Will read and report in a few minutes. Too stinking hot here. EDIT2: errors in my transcription. these are in bold

Just to stream 1024 * 768 my guess is that you will need about 1MB/s to avoid stuttering and other problems. Does the RA office have a SDSL link or a dedicated line? If not, I t think an ADSL modem is likely to be marginal. It might work. Anyone have real experience with this? dodo

I think Col is dead right. Even if the Prez quits,the board can re-elect him as Prez. But not the board membership! dodo

Keith, the present consensus (as much as there is one) is that a General Meeting should be called to get everyone interested together, get the board to explain what they know, and then ask questions of the board. Depending on what is heard, discussed, answered or whatever, then there could be resolutions proposed. Basically, the current situation is: out of the blue, members can't register their aircraft, no one knows ho long this will last for, how many aircraft will be rejected or why, whether registration will now involve a period of grounding for some aircraft, etc. As a background, there has been a communication vacuum for some years, and some people (eg me) think this contributed to the problem or problems that caused the registration issue. Others think some of the board are the problem. Others think there is no problem. The best way to clear this up,and set a way forward is for RA-Aus to meet, discuss, decide. I think that is what a bible study group, gun club, sewing circle or my local aero club would do. Incidentally, I don't see what a vote of no confidence in the board would do. The board presides over, and manages RA-Aus, as representatives of the members. Saying the board is no good either means the concept and structure of RA-Aus is no good,or the existing members are no good. In either case, the membership is then left to sort out a new structure or a new board. I think it would be better to hear the board's view of the current situation and it's causes, then decide what to do next. If that means a resolution directing the board to do something...well,lets see what the boards perspective is,then decide. As for CASA, they just want RA-Aus to stop f***ing up. So do we. As for letting things go on the way they have been, I don't see the point in paying an annual membership to NOT be able to fly. That is where we are heading at the moment. dodo

We would also need enough volunteers to replace the board. Anyone got the time and inclination? I don't think that a revolution and disposal of all board members is a good idea. We need changes, but not the French Revolution. No guillotines, please. If RA- folded under massive legal costs, then we could certainly set up another organisation. But hopefully, that won't be necessary,and in any case, legal matters work slowly, so I doubt it will be this year's problem, dodo

Gavin. I can't help but wonder how a small group could have so undermined the board as to sabotage the financial statements, the minutes of the AGM, the process of aircraft registration, and many other issues. My criticism of the board has always been that information is not provided to the membership. This makes it hard to ask questions, when the basic issues are concealed. In particular, the aircraft registration issue has turned out to be rather more comprehensive, deeper and more messy than anything provided in the Sport Pilot, where it appeared to be limited to a small number of LSAs. And that issue is about the only one where any information at all has been forthcoming . I don't wish to undermine the board, but I do wish they would run the administration of RA-Aus at least as well as my local aero club (or any other organisation). Most importantly, keep us informed, by whatever means seem useful. Best wishes, and thanks for providing your perspective on the issues, dodo

Inspiring writing. Very well done. Go for it. dodo

Errr.....maybe I should have read your post a little more carefully. It is quite clear to me - now! apologies, dodo

Do we ever? I haven't seen Adam Quinn's resignation note, nor his dismissal reasons, if it is true he was fired. I haven't seen any of the CASA audit findings. I haven't seen the AGM minutes. I haven't seen the financial statements. So if we wait for information from the board, we would be better off going flying (if you have a registered plane). dodo

dazza, I disagree with your opinion on the board members that post here (dunno about those that may just lurk). I think the board members that have posted here (past and current) are probably the ones we would want to have as board members. It shows they are prepared to inform, and be criticised. Spriteah has two weeks "form" so can't be condemned for the past. Cazza, Don Ramsay and John G quit due to the environment on the board. John Mck has had the guts, integrity, and humility to state his position and defend it. The board members who are a problem are those who don't inform their members, don't defend their opinions and actions, etc. This is also only one forum of many, so just because someone hasn't posted here doesn't mean they are not achieving - but those that have seem to be the sort of people who do have something to contribute. dodo

Jim, thanks for informing us. Despite the often combative tenor of the posts, I think most posters greatly appreciate the contributions by current ( and past) board members. It contributes balance and a practical focus to what can otherwise be unfocused and drifting threads. You won't get many explicit thanks - probably just once in a while, but I think it is greatly appreciated, even when people disagree with you. At least we get an idea of what is going on, dodo

The minister would ask CASA, who would reply that they were already taking strong and decisive action in the matter, to the degree that no registrations or renewals would be made without thorough checking. Then CASA would start really watching their backs, and ensuring that no aircraft was registered without absolutely everything correct, including the aircraft's political and religious beliefs, a lie detector check on the maintenance books (with any book failing the check being interviewed by the Committee for Un-American logbooks), a stat dec from the owner stating that they had always been a boy scout, and a requirement that the original manufacturer guarantee that no changes had been made to the aircraft since the manufacturer last saw it....and then they would start on the pilots... Basically, it would force CASA into witch-hunt mode on RA-Aus, to ensure they did absolutely nothing wrong, even if it meant doing nothing (eg not registering aircraft). dodo

I have seen a lot of speculation about CASA taking over RA-Aus, or CASA not liking this or not liking that. I have done contract work with Commonwealth bureaucracies for the last 14 years. I work in a weird little niche that has taken me to about 20 or 30 government organisations. I haven't done any work for CASA (although I know plenty of people who have). So I would like to make some observations based on my experience: CASA does aviation policy and safety. They really don't want to do process work, renewing licences and registrations, but its part of the job. They would prefer to look at CARs and CAOs, overseas policy developments, developing trends etc. Managing trivial detail like aircraft registration is administrative work, not policy. More admin work (such as RA-Aus's administrative work) means more admin staff, which means more managing process and people, and consequently, less time spent on important policy issues. Policy is interesting and glamorous (in this strange world), administration is not. So CASA is happy with the six delegated organisations who do the hack work, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T EMBARRASS CASA. For a notorious example, take a plane crashing into a ferris wheel, where the ATSB preliminary report states that there were issues with the pilot's certificate, the aircraft's registration, the aircraft's factory status and build quality, as well as pilot preparation, and God knows what else. It doesn't greatly matter if these are true or not, but a formal ATSB report has brought these to the world's attention, so it is _SERIOUS_ for CASA. And people then ask "What was CASA doing?" And CASA can only say "We outsourced this to an organisation that said it would manage things - and it hasn't". The trouble is, you can outsource the work, but you can't outsource not the responsibility. CASA don't want to do the work. The only thing they want less that taking over RA-Aus is some disaster that is an outcome of outsourcing the regulation of RA. They also do not care what RA-Aus does,so long it regulates to the agreed standards, and does not bring CASA into disrepute. CASA's nightmare would be seeing a Sixty Minutes investigation of RA--Aus and CASA after some debacle. So CASA really don't give a flying F what RA-Aus does,so long as it gets it's house in order. We could elect a new board every month, and fire CEOs on a weekly basis, so long as we don't bring them into disrepute. CASA just want us to register aircraft and certificate pilots in accordance with legislation, and agreed conditions. And CASA pulled the pin after FOUR failed audits. Generally, you make sure EVERYTHING is fixed before the second audit. I am surprised CASA waited until the fourth audit. Generally having a third audit is very bad news. A second is bad enough. CASA won't flip-flop on this. Having taken harsh action,they will want EVERYTHING fixed before we are let off the hook. And they may feel that if aircraft rego was handled like this, that they might need to check on other aspects of administration. So things won't go back to normal in a hurry. In summary: 1 CASA do not wish to take over RA-Aus. 2 RA screwed up big time, and will not be let off the hook in a hurry 3 CASA may well take a deep and pedantic interest in other regulatory aspects of RA,and we may find we are asked for all sorts of other information, and the bureaucracy required of the membership may increase and be a pain in the neck for individuals. 4 CASA do aviation safety, not aviation. So if we don't do it their way, we don't fly. 5 CASA just wish we would get our house in order, and don't greatly care how. Dodo

I agree with David. Re registration issues, the main thing I want is to find what was found in the early audits, what action was taken, why it didn't work, and what the forecast is now. I asked a board member and got nothing. No one else got much either, or if they did, they aren't saying. A GM seems the reasonable response. Secondary to that, I would want to know what the board are doing to address the endemic communication failures, and how members can be informed in future. If the responses to these sort of questions are unsatisfactory, then there might be a question of other resolutions. dodo EDIT - Jim - thanks for posting your information and position on the issues.

It is a sad reflection on past behaviour that you need to spell that out! dodo

I would attend, but I doubt it will be publicised. Anyone know if a board meeting has been called, and if so, where and when? dodo

JG, my post was not a criticism of you, or of others who provide information. It was just a personal and bitter observation of how RA-Aus members can stay informed. thanks for the information, dodo EDIT - PS I assume you meant corroborated, rather than collaborated. I enjoyed the difference.

And, as usual, we rely on rumour. Maybe the letter has not been published due to concerns of libel. Or whatever. But members of RA-Aus get to speculate based on n-th hand information. dodo

If we knew, it would be because the board told us something, sometimes, which they don't. So we speculate, dicuss, and it seems a plan has formed. Not sure if everyone agrres with that plan... 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

Andy, I agree. I am not against the technology, but I want to keep the focus on the problem,which is a lack of willingness to communicate, rather than a lack of ability to communicate. With willingness will come better tools and methods. dodo

Andy was that humanely, or humanly? Depending on context, this could be painful, or worse... dodo

Technology is good, but the problem we have in RA-Aus is simple, and as old as time. There is no reason that RA-Aus couldn't get everything they do right without a single computer - it would just cost two or three times as much, and turnaround times for basic administrative tasks would take a couple of weeks. In my day job, I am often asked to find a technological solution to what is essentially a process problem, where a better understanding of the business would obviate the need for technical answers - but people want a magic bullet solution from technology. I am not against the solutions discussed here, but organisations need to get the basics right, and understand their business, first. Then you can start doing things better or cheaper with technology. dodo

I tried that. I emailed, explaining my concerns. Got referred to the website. I emailed again, explaining this seemed circular, and uninformative. Got a placebo replay. Emailed again... Was told I had been answered. I emailed back, suggesting that was rubbish,and suggesting the board member review his replies. Got a reply saying his answers were fine, checked by a friend. Lost confidence in anything he said. Very, Very, Unimpressed. Contact a board member? Get spin and lies. dodo PS sorry it sounds bitter,but that email exchange was the final straw for me. I had just found out about the CASA shutdown, and it was the first time I have contacted a board member. Not a good experience.

As usual, we have to rely on rumour and 2nd/3rd/4th hand information, but I have strong concerns over firing the staff, for what is clearly a long-standing management deficiency. If this costs the membership a fortune, I will be unhappy, but there is an ethical issue over who takes responsibility. Adam took on a job where major issues existed, with whatever support he could get from the CEO and the board. I wouldn't be surprised if he left of his own accord. However, if he was terminated, we need to know the reason. It seems that Steve Tizard has resigned to spend time with grandchildren. That's OK, but in that case, he is clearly not being held responsible by the board. So the board remains responsible, unless they choose to blame someone recently employed, and under the supervision of the CEO and the board, for problems that clearly pre-existed. Not very pretty. On this alone, I would like information from the board. Bugger all chance of that, unless we add it to Andys@coffs reasons for a GM, dodo