flyvulcan

Nev, that is a fine idea! In fact, my jet is progressing well and hopefully will fly early next year. Wings are now done, tailfeathers are done, fuselage structural work should be finished in October with just engine and systems fitout to go. It can only be VH registered and I am building it in conjunction with the SAAA. I've had great support from the organisation's Technical Councillors as well as from very knowledgeable and experienced builders within the SAAA. As a member of both RAAus and SAAA (both since their inceptions), I can say that there are benefits with both organisations. There are some very cool aircraft built and operated by SAAA members! Nev25, if you are an aviation nut, I would recommend you join the SAAA and become part of your local Chapter. Your local Latrobe Valley Chapter is very active. Cheers, Dave

Could someone who is attending please post some pics for those of us who can't make it? Thanks

Hi Duncan, It looks like you may have to call Jabiru to get the answer to your question. For what it's worth, the Lightning Bug fuselage does not use any sandwich and the skin is (I am estimating) simply 2 layers or possibly 4 (we are about to measure skin thickness to confirm) of uni cloth oriented appropriately. The forward fuselage has a central structural keel to which pretty well everything is attached but that keel stops just aft of the pilots seat. The rear fuselage consists only of the skin, a few bulkheads and what is essentially a longeron on each side where the fuselage top and bottom halves have been joined at their flanges. That said, the original owner of the Lightning Bug kit that I have built my Komet project from added a 6" wide sandwich longeron running from nose to tail along each sidewall which uses 1/4" foam. I expect that this mod would have been with the blessing of the original designer of the Bug as my kits former owner built the prototype of the Bug for the designer. My wing leading edge D-cell, which is the main structural component of the wing uses 1/4" foam in its sandwich structure. When I get home, I shall email you some photos of my fuselage where you can see the centre structural keel and also the foam sandwich longerons that have been added to my kit only. All current flying Bugs do not have that longeron, only the skin. This info is for your interest and consideration as an example of a different method of construction to straight sandwich construction. Cheers, Dave

Lightwing?

This is the obvious first step in overhauling our organisation. That is, for the Board to accurately determine a clear and comprehensive set of Objectives for the organisation. The current list of Objectives that is on the RAAus website appear to be in need of an overhaul.

Dafydd, These are very true words. Not only a knowledge of the Regulations, but also a good grasp of interpreting and understanding the Regs will be needed within our organisation. It would be good to have at least one person on the Board with this skill set, but also, it would be highly desirable for the General Manager, who has responsibility for the day to day operation of the Organisation to also have this skill set, as well as the Technical Manager. If we eventually incorporate a Quality Management System, the Quality Manager, by nature of his role would have this skill set and should be able to advise the GM/Board on these matters.

Turbs et al, Looking at the member and role criteria of SAGs at Para 1.3 of http://legacy.icao.int/anb/safetymanagement/training/presentations/ICAO%20SMS%20M%2008%20–%20SMS%20planning%20(R013)%2009%20(E).ppt, it appears to me appropriate that each FTF could be designated as a SAG within a RAAus SMS. It could be written into the RAAus SMS Manual that each FTF (SAG) would have the responsibility to compile and maintain a Hazard Register applicable to their specific area of operation, and develop/promulgate risk mitigating initiatives within their own operational documentation. So with the example given about circuit direction or parachuting, the relevant FTFs Hazard Register would list RH circuits RW18 with their specific Ops Manual/local flying orders noting this with the requirement for people operating at their airfield to be aware and comply with the non-normal circuit direction. The FTF could also ensure that the relevant CASA documents relating to that airfield correctly reflect such information. WRT the parachutists, a similar course of action could be applied. Etc. If they were part of the RAAus SMS, as well as local initiatives, the FTFs would also be obliged to incorporate any RAAus initiatives in respect to general Risk Mitigation strategies, for example to amend syllabi to incorporate more extensive stall/spin training, to emphasise the decision making process with respect to flying into deteriorating weather conditions etc.. I think everyone will agree that liability should remain with the service provider, unless it is proven that the overseeing authority has been negligent. I believe that the FTFs, as the service provider, will remain liable even if the FTF is part of the RAAus SMS. Perhaps a legal person can confirm or refute this? WRT auditing of each individual FTFs safety system, I would see this as a role of the Safety Manager in the first instance who will provide support, and in the final instance, by an RAAus Quality Manager who has no direct involvement in the Safety System and can report without prejudice. Any deficiency noted by the Quality Audit would require rectification. Whether a FTF comes under the RAAus SMS as a SAG, or whether RAAus assists each FTF establish their own standalone SMS through provision of a template probably doesn't matter as long as the overall system complies with the CASA requirement, liability remains where it should, and that an effective system and processes are developed as painlessly as possible.

Let's start with the fact that the requirement for a SMS has been imposed on RAAus. We, as an organisation are now obliged to do so, and in short time. If members feel strongly that such an imposition is not appropriate, then we can get our representatives to commence lobbying to have the requirement rescinded. In the meantime, lets look at how to bring our organisation into compliance as best we can. People have rightly pointed out that for each FTF to implement their own SMS is a significant and onerous undertaking. Perhaps (thinking outside the square here), the organisation as a whole could implement the SMS and do a lot of the hard work associated with the establishment and maintenance of such a system. Then, rather than having each FTF develop and implement their own individual SMS, perhaps each FTF could be considered to be an individual Safety Action Group (SAG) within the overall RAAus SMS. Each FTF would establish their own Hazard Register and report to a centralised Safety Department within RAAus. This would remove the significant burden of manual writing, appointing a Safety Manager/Accountable Person etc from each FTF. There would need to be be a nominated person to head each SAG, so one nominee from each FTF that would be responsible for maintaining the FTFs participation in and maintenance of that FTFs responsibilities within the overall SMS of RAAus. This option is one that will both comply with the intent and aim of a SMS whilst providing minimal stress to each FTF and the organisation as a whole. Ok, I've made a suggestion to help. Perhaps there are other suggestions from more of you that the Board can consider to try to introduce this obligatory system as painlessly as possible, while still complying with the intent of such a system.

Information post For those members who are not familiar with the principles of a SMS, the ICAO SMS Implementation Training Course (which I have attended, prior to introducing a SMS into my organisation) has a reasonable presentation about SMSs. It can be viewed at http://legacy.icao.int/anb/safetymanagement/training/presentations/ICAO%20SMS%20M%2008%20–%20SMS%20planning%20(R013)%2009%20(E).ppt. It may look like a load of waffle, but if implemented correctly, such a system would provide enormous benefit to our organisation. I have seen firsthand the substantial benefits of a successful system within an aviation organisation.

Perhaps RAAus should point out to CASA/ATSB etc. that a crucial component of any SMS, and more importantly our SMS is the reporting/analysis of incidents. Consequently, if we do not receive all investigations/conclusions into the incidents associated with our primary activities, then we cannot maintain an effective SMS. The fact that regulatory protocol is preventing us from implementing an effective regulatory imposed SMS should support our case to gain access to this information.

When the AUF first came into existence, it was ostensibly an organisation that provided representation for a group of enthusiasts to the regulatory authority and also a representative body for promoting and coordinating that groups activities. Over time, the function of the AUF/RAAus evolved into one of both representation/promotion as well as administrative oversight through delegations from the regulatory authority. The initial concept of regional reps was introduced during the time when representation/promotion was the core activity for the AUF. Now that one of the key functions of RAAus is administrative oversight through the delegations from CASA, which has introduced more stringent liability and accountability issues to the organisation, and with the inevitable restructure of RAAus imminent as a result of recent events, we probably need to differentiate between the role of the Board and the role of the Regional Reps. First and foremost, in amongst the problems that RAAus is facing at the moment, we need to remember that as well as the regulatory/delegation responsibilities that we are trying to sort through and resolve, we have retained the role of representation and promotion. In my opinion, RAAus should have a Board that provides governance to the organisation in accordance with recognised practices. Separate to the Board, we should have a Panel of elected Regional Reps who do exactly that, represent. I see the Panel reporting to the General Manager who is responsible for the day to day operation of the organisation, in order to comply with the policies and strategies decided by the Board. The Board will have responsibility and accountability for the health of the organisation and should be appropriately qualified and experienced to govern the organisation. The Panel of Regional Reps on the other hand, will be an avenue for members of the organisation to communicate their opinions and initiatives to both management and the Board in order for the organisation to retain an element of representation for its individual members and also to provide an avenue for members to influence the direction of their organisation. Having a Board which is separate from the Panel of Regional Reps would require a change to our organisations constitution, but it is a change that I feel would benefit the organisation as a whole. We are having healthy and constructive discussions about the future structure of RAAus on other threads about SMS and QMS implementation. I trust that this thread can provide some constructive discussion about the structure of the organisation with respect to Governance and Management. There are quite a number of generic threads already that touch on what I am suggesting. However, this thread is specifically started to address the suggestion of having a Board who is responsible for governance, that is a totally separate entity to the Panel of Regional Representatives. So, what are people's thoughts on having a separate Board/Panel of Regional Representatives?

Again, I agree with your sentiment. Big consultant companies, even small ones can be quite expensive. A suitably qualified and experienced individual, employed full time by RAAus as the Quality Manager could establish the system in a fairly short time and on a known salaried budget for RAAus. Showing such a commitment to quality would probably also be viewed positively by CASA.

Spot on OME. I fully support with this initiative.

Turbs, we hear what you're saying! However, how will we know that we have a compliant and effective SMS? Sure, there is an element of Quality Assurance in a SMS, but the SMS as a whole would be assessed by the Quality System. With the RAAus coffers being as full as they are at the moment, I believe that some budget expenditure to get the ship back on an even keel as soon as possible would be money well spent. Using correct process, let's recruit a suitable person who has the knowledge, experience and motivation to get a QMS up and running, including drafting the QMS manual and also relevant Procedures Manuals as soon as possible.

Agreed. We don't need to discuss the relevant standards here, only the principal of the system and its relevance to RAAus. Perhaps, as a bit of a poll, if readers of this thread agree that incorporating a QMS with a dedicated Quality Manager would be beneficial to the new structure of RAAus, click on the "Agree" icon for this post. If people do not feel that the expense of a dedicated Quality Manager would be justified, they could air their opinion in response. As a postscript, I feel that the QM should be a dedicated position because a) there is a lot of work to be done in setting up and maintaining a QMS and b) being dedicated to Quality, the incumbent will have no conflict of interest.

Where's the parapet when you need it? Seriously, there are many contributors to this forum who are passionate about flying their aircraft and we need an organisation that works. This is just a suggested initiative to try to help the organisation during a time where help is needed.

While there is much discussion going on about the implementation of a SMS within RAAus and also about the organisational structure as a whole, I feel that it is relevant to discuss the incorporation of a Quality Management System (QMS) into the organisation. With an effective internal audit program in place, the deficiencies within our system could be identified and addressed, well before they are identified by an external agency such as CASA. A good QMS will look closely at our organisations system including policies, procedures and processes to evaluate their compliance, relevance, efficiency and outcomes. The QMS also has a process to ensure that rectification of deficiencies is implemented and that a successful resolution has been achieved. I suggest that our organisation needs to have such a system in place and I suggest that a dedicated Quality Manager be appointed to implement an effective QMS as soon as possible within RAAus. With all the changes that will be taking place within RAAus in the near future, it will be beneficial to have an internal system that will be checking that all the new policies, procedures and processes are not only compliant with regulatory and statutory requirements, but that effectiveness and efficiency are also considered. Cheers, Dave

If this is the case then please accept my generic statement "When September comes around, judge the Safety Manager incumbent on his progress in implementing a SMS, and not on the fact that a mature SMS is perhaps not in place." In addition, it is not going to be easy for the FTFs to implement a SMS within their own organisation without the responsible person having some knowledge about SMSs. I know that expenditure from the RAAus coffers is strictly controlled but given the perilous position of RAAus at the moment and with the the sustainability of some of the FTFs being linked to their ability to continue their business uninterrupted, perhaps the Board could consider contracting a specialist agency to develop a generic SMS for the FTFs, to include all relevant manuals, both policies and procedures. This initiative could significantly reduce the stress and heartache on FTF providers. BTW, if I was the Safety Manager compiling a hazard register for RAAus, I would be listing the stress on FTF establishments to comply with regulatory requirements in short time frames as a potential hazard. Mitigating initiatives would include extending the timeframe, or providing support etc.. This suggested initiative would not only assist the FTFs, but would also indicate that RAAus is being proactive in supporting its members and also undertaking initiatives to bring its operation in line with CASA requirements. Dave

Regardless of who fills the Safety Manager post, please do not expect them to have a mature SMS in place by September and do not judge them harshly for failing to have a mature system in place by September. The establishment of a SMS is a large task. It's not just about writing an SMS manual, it's also about conducting a Gap Analysis, developing and implementing procedures, setting up systems, training staff, developing a proactive safety culture etc. in order for the organisation to comply with the broad policies contained within the SMS Manual. At the ICAO SMS Implementation Training Course I attended, ICAO indicated that it would likely take a minimum of two years to establish a mature and effective SMS. They were right! However, it was time well spent because the SMS within my current employers organisation has already reduced some potentially significant hazards that were present, but not clearly evident in the operation. Some of these more significant hazards have been either mitigated or alleviated through training while others have been addressed through amending our procedures. I can see many areas in RAAus operations where an SMS could improve safety. However, it will take a fair bit of time. When September comes around, judge Miles on his progress in implementing a SMS, and not solely on the fact that a mature SMS is perhaps not in place. Dave

Spot on Damkia. Any reorganisation of the structure of RAAus should include the establishment of a Quality Management System whereby the continual auditing of our internal policies, processes and outcomes will identify any shortcomings, well before CASA find them for us. Effective Quality Management Systems and Safety Management Systems are real assets to an organisation, even though many people simply view them as catchphrases, rather than effective tools to monitor and improve the health of an organisation or operation. Perhaps our Board could consider setting up a QMS so we not only have a formal program to identify our shortcomings before CASA do, but so that we also have a process to monitor and ensure that rectification of the problems is both instigated and the outcome is successful. Dave

Mick, this is a most appropriate comment and is perhaps a solution to one of the organisations problems. Until the constitution changes, continue with having a treasurer who holds the responsibility for financial oversight, but employ a suitably qualified Accountant who would essentially fill a Chief Financial Officer/Company Accountant role to get and maintain the books in order and to make recommendations to the Board about fiscal policy for the organisation. Dave

Thanks Alan, the tailwheel is safely back with me, waiting for its next adventure. Perhaps on a delta... What about the Airstralia Budgie? An iconic Aussie bird and a play on the word "budget" which is the aim of the aircraft.

Hi Alan, You used the term yourself above. How about the "Monarch" or perhaps the "Monarch C2S" as a name or designator? It means sole and absolute ruler and amongst cheap 2 seaters, it could be the monarch. Cheers, Dave

I believe he was trying to refill his gas bottle using the air to ground coupling technique but he screwed his approach...

The forum administrator added a function whereby you can only edit a post within a certain timeframe, to ensure the continuity of threads. Outside this timeframe, what you wrote is now set in stone (unless you can get the administrator to edit it for you).