Chird65

So If i'm correct, that was in our 2009/10 Deed of Agreement. that deed is replaced each year and according to the new 2013/14 deed Schedule D. there are 4 SMS milestones to be achieved during this deeds start and end dates.. Most of the milestones are due over the next 4 months. The first is Nov 30th. The SMS now has to comply with CASAs requirements. i accept that CASA probably has based this on the ICAO document so your statement, in my oppinion, is partially true but the compliance is with CASA not ICAO. As an aside, I agree this is well over due and if we take our Deed seriously this should have been done years ago. My understanding is a SMS is one that fits the organisation and is able to morph to fit with changing circumstances. As our organisation has dealings with individuals, Training organisations, and CASA it will not apply as a blanket but should cover each part efficiently and without undue burden. I for one appreciate your input and know you talk with experience and a passion. i just want to make sure I understand what i'm talking about. Regards Chris

Ok Turbs, What part of the ICAO compliance are RAA missing. As far as I know ICAO are a peak body that promotes Safety in aviation internationally by recommending change. Each Aiviation body in their domestic country decide what and how they will comply. CASA have complete responsibility for aviation safety in Australia so are ultimately responsible for RAA operational safety. CASA have just recently signed a letter saying RAA are in compliance with their obligations. If i've got it wrong point me in the right direction. Chris

I wonder what the action is when this happens, are we being refered back to a CFI to check our education and checking for bad practices in our planning.

Hi Andy, (comment only) this statement covers it all. We are currently using cash accounting not accrual accounting. There is nothing wrong with cash accounting so long as you accept the ebb and flow of the reports over time. We are not a very complicated entity as far as our accounting goes, so I do wonder if an accrual accounting system will help manage the association any better. Mind you if we are employing an expert (Auditor) then just maybe this is enough reason to change. If we bring in 2 yearly memberships or registrations we would need to use Accrual as well. Chris

Reading anothe http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/16362-zenith-kr2s-sonerai-safety-record-comparison-3.html#post186691

modified spud cannon.

Is this it? http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.list/parentTopicID/114

I can still read it. Sorry to be exact http://www.raa.asn.au/ Windows with Chrome

Hey Maj, can you give a reference to that incident? As you can see from my avatar this is the plane I have an interest in. i have never heard of a vertical fin issue although CASA did in the past add a requirement for attach points for the rudder. Chris

Poor Ross, he will be now known as his Chinese name WunHungLow

Same as Coyote ugly. One of the best quotes from the film of the same name.

Funny at least the last bit is

... well they could give us a wisper of what is going on, not silence as they are giving us. The president could give us some updates via. RAAus web site, nup just silence. ... 1. At what stage is SMS? 2. I hear there are experts giving directions for the SMS. Who are the experts ? 3. What is happening at the RAAus office? 4. Is the board finding the task daunting? Hence the silence. 5. What is the CEO doing? ... Published by Mark Clayton, signed by Jim Tatlock. "On Monday 19th of August, 2013, the President Rod Birrell and the Treasurer Jim Tatlock met with Kevin Scrimshaw (Safety Assurance Officer) of CASA’s Self Administering Sport Aviation Organisations Section (SASAO). Meetings covered in detail what CASA’s SMS requirements are for Sports Aviation Organizations such as ours. On the following day, Tuesday the 20th, CASA, RAAus Operations Manager Zane Tully and I began to develop a suitable SMS for our organization. The proposed system offers RA-Aus. the following benefits: • A Safety Management System that is acceptable to CASA • A SMS that is similar to those adopted, or being developed by other Sports Aviation Organisations (able to share data) • Inexpensive • Stand alone from other procedural documents (smallest impact on current practices) • Able to be developed and rolled out to Flying Training Facilities (FTF’s) and Clubs minimizing workload for end users The meeting with CASA will now be discussed with the RA-Aus. Board and a clear direction for the development and implementation of an updated SMS will be published in the near future." (sorry just saw Sues' post)

Sad news

No Preference for me I can make anything work. if it makes it better for you Ian I can live with it.

This is something I have been trying to say for a long time. RAA is a part of GA. Every time I hear someone say should I go RAA or GA, i see people just looking at their small world. Back to topic; We need a SMS as it is in our agreement, to achieve this an accountable person is needed, but in the end we are all responsible to make sure this works. Just as the SMS formalizes what we are doing and trying to achieve, we need to ensure that the SMS changes to accommodate change and our end point. BTW our end point is safer flying.

I hope so. It does seem that there is information out there but neither the organisation or those that have the information feel that it can be widely distributed. "Eventually" we may be able to judge the situation. Chris

Turbs, i would disagree about bickering and bitching. There has been public comment in that two weeks by members and interested parties. Some has been below standard but a lot has been well thought out. There has been no further communications from the organisation. I have not seen anyone saying the FTF was not required, just its form being questioned. I have seen the need of a new permanent position questioned and I have seen this argued (That's not bickering) but I have not been convinced either way If you think that the method the SMS was progressed got it any further I can see no evidence of it. Sending a draft FTF could have been done at any time. All that has been asked is comment by CFI's, this is not compliance. Have we had any evidence that it has progressed further? None that has been communicated. There seems to be information available to some private members but not the majority. On this forum some of the posters that I have followed have started making statements that do not align with the public statements of the organisation. i.e. "we are about to be shut down". There has been a lot of frustration and worry on this forum and even our most calm posters have fallen below their normal standard. I still consider it very poor form if CASA communicated that it was about to act to affect many thousands of flyers, that the organisation would not communicate this to the membership. I note I have seen this poor form with the aircraft registration. I'm still waiting for good communication but I am not hopeful anymore. Chris

Keith, I agree that being able to sit down and talk would be great but that is not practical. I still would rather all of this follow due process. If the main gripe/reason for the board not supporting the SMS then that brings us to the next point. Who should pay for the SMS. If we have a president saying we are in default of a deed of agreement, and the board decides to not fix that then the president needs to put that in a motion to the board have it voted on and then communicate to the authority. If it sounds far fetched that a board would vote against complying with the Authority then I agree. What I surmise happened was it was never put that plainly that a solution was put to the board and not a requirement, that the full information was not available to the full board and personalities ruled rather than reason. I do not work in an area where SMS is a daily thing but we do have OH&S and company policy, this is backed by training and monthly audits of policy compliance. From my reading a SMS is evolving system that moves and grows around different environments to achieve safety. I think even the start that the board accepts the need for our association to have a SMS and then getting the Flight schools and Clubs involved in developing the SMS would have placated CASA. A regular board communication to show the status and an audit environment to show compliance would have allowed the SMS to not be forgotten.

What i find amazing is you get to build a plane while the bath still needs to be put in.

Motz, i agree with where you are going but i'd rather see us change our regs rather than force instructors to the extra time and expense of using non RAA paths.

I don't vote often on polls as the question is asked, I interpreter it, then my response is used how ever anyone wants.

Re Post 287. So Ed will not do it this way again. Good. How will this be officially recorded for future reference? have a censure motion. talk to and against that motion. Vote Ed has the right of response, he should explain how it came about, he should supply the evidence and his understanding and motivations. Importantly, those for and against should also explain their evidence, understanding and motivations. After the vote, if it is carried another motion on, if any, consequence. This follows the correct path for motions as well. If it is not carried or is carried, then a new motion to what are the current Emergency powers. Oh yeah no dummy spits. Chris

Turboplanner, I think it is wrong to describe the censure motion as fighting each other. A censure motion puts on notice the proposing and supporting members strong opposition to the behavior. What happens after is not a Motion of no confidence; it is a recording for future reference. If this is voted on and the other board members talk to or against at least there will have been full board conversations. I think this motion can happen and the other urgent matters attended to so long as there are no dummy spits. Chris

Hi Keith, I live in a world where people hide behind “I had to do this because I was looking down the barrel of a gun". Rarely does that prove to be true. I deal with large corporate, not for profits, owners corporate and personal legal cases. I am reading that you have information that is not available to me, i.e. that there was some imperative. I will wait for the full explanation and at that point it will be transparent. I am far from PC and call it how I see it. If someone is not honest or transparent then they bring it on themselves when others put motives to their actions. I am actually glad there are those that are willing to help our board. We don’t all have the right time or skill to be board members. I get the impression that the board does not always accept the help on offer and makes excuses that do not sit right to me for justifying those decisions. Chris