Jim McDowall

The conventional theory is that if a strategy is not committed to paper (ie paperwork) then it is not a strategy - how is that bizarre? or are you simply being obtuse?

The point isnt that strategy is not important, it is that strategy is not the only thing. For too long now we have witnessed the evolution of systems where if the paperwork is in place (ie for example the written strategy) then we insulated ourselves from risk. On many occasions managers of emergency services agencies have been caught with their pants down because their strategy was deficient (not my view this is the view of enquiries and coroners). That is the point of the quotes. Sure, have a plan but rely on it absolutely at your peril.

For some I might have been filling the ether with noise for others it may have caused some reflection

Thanks for the comments turbo. In response, there is an expanding body of law on the subject of "bringing an organisation into disrepute". For example a Commonwealth Public Service employee was sacked for anonymously criticizing his employer in an on-line forum. Someone took the time to track him down through the web and the unfortunate events followed. He had an impeccable service record. The courts upheld his sacking. In organisations like GFA and RA-Aus personal conflicts can and have been used to run people out of the organisation under this guise. I am aware of instances where this has occurred in the GFA. It happens in sporting clubs Australia wide and is increasingly being used in employment situations. Compliance with ICAO regulations is not required to be uniform. Each country only has to inform ICAO of its variations and these variations are published as an appendix to the various annexes. Either way ICAO stands for the INTERNATIONAL Civil Aviation Organisation and its primary charter is the regulation of international transport aviation not particularly General Aviation or UL etc. For example, from ANNEX 7:

The rules imposed by virtue of the agreements (is there a current agreement regime or is CASA just handing over the dosh) with RA-Aus and GFA these organisations have re-written Ops and Technical manuals which have imposed expanded regulatory regimes on members. If the GFA leadership spent more time flying and less time writing rules the GFA would be in a healthier position. An end result of this is, for example, members can be turfed out of the organisation for bringing the organisation into disrepute, not a breach of any aviation regulation. And then there is the mess that has been created for maintenance organisations by new regulations not to mention the complete inability to reconcile the 1988 CAR and 1998 CASR into one comprehensible document.

Turbo your moniker is interesting: "Strategy can compensate for lack of talent but talent never compensates for lack of strategy." In retort others have made these observations: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” —Sun Tsu, Ancient Chinese Military strategist “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results” – Sir Winston Churchill “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”—Albert Einstein and best of all “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out” —Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles 1962 So before blowing people off take a minute to think about this: “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all” —Peter Drucker (the father of modern management theory)

EGM and AGM treated the same: and then there is this: (see attachment) Then you realise that: And there is no direct election by the members of the Board!

Add to that the incumbent Board get to choose when and where the requisitioned EGM can occur. It is not unknown for such a meeting to be held in a phone box in some out of the way place at 3 am where the board's travel expenses are covered by the organisation and the interested membership have to fund their own costs....... and then there is the proxy votes.

It is a direct quote from the instrument - the Minister expects. The point is the Part 149 has been wandering around in the dark for nearly 20 years and at no stage has there been a serious examination of any alternative administrative arrangement eg in the style of ELAAA. The whole process has been intellectually bankrupt from the start which demonstrates the influence of GFA sycophants who have never disclosed their conflict of interest as required by the various legislative and policy requirements of the APS and CASA. The definition of "Completed —Implementation Ongoing" in the implementation report is a repository for inaction or regulation by attrition.

The inability of anyone to effect change in the GFA is probably why the AUF/RAA recruited so many members from the pool of disaffected GFA members. In the period since HORSCOT (1987) the gliding membership has halved whilst RAA is probably 5 times larger in membership and about the same in aircraft. When the rules of any elected body prevent wholesale change there is nothing the membership can do about it. I even made formal representations about legal deficiencies in the GFA rules to the Registrar of Associations in Victoria who basically said "piss off". Where do you go from there?

Pursuant to the Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019 (Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019) which serves as a notice to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) the Minister included completion of the implementation of the remaining parts of the Governments response to the Forsyth report: 4. Key Aviation Initiatives I expect CASA, in conducting its responsibilities as the aviation safety regulator, to have regard to the following key aviation initiatives: (a) ........... (b)........... ©........... (d) completing implementation of the remaining parts of the Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, including actively progressing regulatory reform in consultation with industry and supported by appropriate safety cases; The Minister issues a report annually on the progress of implementation. The latest report shows the slippage on the Part 149 implementation which any manager worth his salt would be jumping up and down about. In a classic piece of Sir Humphreyism the definition of Completed - Implementation Ongoing say it all: "‘Completed —Implementation Ongoing’ refers to circumstances where the action requested by the Government has been taken, but giving practical effect to the changes requires the adoption and ongoing use of new arrangements through policies, procedures and practices, largely by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority." This would seem to be what CASA has been doing with Part 149 since 1998.

see attached SCC agenda: Note how the Part 149 - Implementation and transition is delivered prior to the organisations were given the chance to provide any input. Remember that if there were going to be any changes to the previously proposed Part 149 arrangements, the organisations were not privy to these prior to the meeting. Consequently the organisations were unable to discuss the final draft with their members and voice any representative opinion. If CASA was genuinely concerned about cost they could have emailed out the draft Part 149 with a note on any implementation issues instead of assembling everybody in Sydney at their own cost. What is driving this? Following the Forsyth report, CASA undertook to Government to have Part 149 in place in 2015. Along with this and other regulatory follies Carmody is under pressure to have the commitments it made to Government in 2014 completed. We will all be the casualties in this bumbling bureaucratic nightmare.

Carmody said "New regulations to oversee the self-administration functions of organisations in the sport and recreational sector have received official aviation community support to be made into law." The reality is that the SCC was invited to a meeting where the finished product was delivered. None of the attendees were able to review the submissions to the NPRM but instead were presented with a potted summary of submissions that only seemed to reflect the views of the regulator. This hardly a good start to proper consideration by the SCC of the concerns of the aviation community. Either way who is this "official aviation community" ? As Mike Borgelt says this management model is based on the falsehood that desirable, better safety outcomes are achieved by its adoption. Its roots go back to when the GFA model presented to HORSCOT as an efficient safe model even though the report observed that the GFA's accident rate was twice that of GA. Now the BITRE data relied upon by regulators is so corrupted by misinformation supplied by GFA that any claims as to the safety outcomes of the GFA model are totally without foundation.

Perhaps the following has application: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003 Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things. So if the Commonwealth and CASA are not liable then the buck stops with the AP which from memory is an issue to be sorted out when Part 149 (and accompanying legislative changes) are implemented. Adoption of the US FAR's en globo could sort out this entire mess.

Well put Mike - When batteries in electric cars can match the range of my car (about 900k per tank) at 110kph and the capacity to accelerate from 80 to 110 up a 10% grade I may be convinced that an electric car is a viable option. And maybe I would need to be convinced that the electricity distribution network can accommodate several million cars being charged as well as meet the other community needs but that is a discussion for another forum.

Not just emissions from exhaust but fuel tanks vapours via vents as well.

Existing two stroke engines are probably OK see: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bb0da7a5-6404-4890-b096-bf588fedae35/files/factsheet-non-road-spark-ignition-engines-emission-standards.pdf So where do jets fit?

No sign of the current CASA agreement on the website - is there one? If not, why is RAAus doing CASA's job?

I was under no illusions about the new structure - eg members cannot direct directors etc but given the statement by RAA that : "at the same time a priority of the Board has been to deliver the core functions of the organisation and continue to register aircraft and issue pilot certificates and this has resulted in the persistence of a budget deficit." there could have been some justification for the income grab that is a bit more substantive eg some interim financials. The GFA has been discussing similar issues at their latest Board meeting; for example: under the subject "Inward Correspondence": Response from Shane Carmody (CASA). No commitment with trying to find ongoing funding. Part 149 delayed until the end of 2017 and GFA unlikely until 2018. We need to arrange a Deed for 2017/18. under the heading "Vice president" CASA Funding letter: Done. Apply for 2017 funding. Check with other ASAC groups about their position with future funding. Board noted political implications of Carmody letter, noted that further approaches may be needed at Ministerial level and possibly CASA Board and/or Peter Lloyd level AND Part 149. Need to decide if we want to accept part 149. Will need to develop our documentation. Waiting on final version of Part 149 to be created. Need a plan as to impacts of loss of CASA funding, and solutions. It seems that GFA does not have a funding agreement for 2016/17 and the allusions to a Carmody letter (the contents of which are not discussed in the minutes) would seem to indicate that, at least for GFA, that funding stream has dried up. (see my posts earlier about S.97AB of the Act) What are the political implications referred to? and who is Peter Lloyd?

So there is currently no agreement (contract) in place? If there isn't and CASA is paying over the dosh then the National Audit Office should have something to say and how do we know that what we are doing meets the terms of an agreement to be signed post performance? BTW has anybody seen any Board minutes/agendas or interim financials?

Do you mean that the usual MoA between CASA and RAA does not exist? In which case why is RAA still undertaking the tasks required by the agreement in the past. Surely this would result in a cost saving? They are not required by the CAO's and without an agreement there is no basis for these actions.

Don't disgree with the sentiment but my comment is about the ultimate enforceability of such an arrangement. What would probably happen is that an employee would take the CASA position and wait for RA-Aus to take action. CASA would not be a party to the ultimate action but in the intervening period any hostility may translate into negative outcomes for RA-Aus members as he/she would ,no doubt, have a number of friends willing to help within CASA.

Care needs to be taken with this - something to do with the outlawing of slavery - restraint of trade provisions are hard to enforce in employment contracts.

Have a look at the UK CAA medical declaration - most illuminating.Note the period of validity - once only upto age 70 - 3 years after that. Here is the link - https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=form&id=7493 This is even more relaxed than the annual GFA or Ra-Aus certification.

Guys, The ATSB report I previously referred to says it all. 6 pilot incapacitations per annum for low capacity air transport. This why the FAA and the UK CAA have elected to abandon regular medicals for recreational and non-commercial GA. The cost of this particular regulation to the community is not justified and an impediment to the growth of private aviation. I am sure if all the medical episodes discussed above happened on the road the consequences would be worse than a possible accident of a single pilot aircraft with a high probability that a road accident will involve other road users AND YET we as a community accept it and move on. Why should private aviation be burdened with this impediment of medicals when that are demonstrably incapable of identifying many medical events (eg stroke) and are based on a probability sets many of which are outdated or so broad to be of little use. Dont forget your RAMPC or Class 2 medical has a lifetime of upto 2 years- how many medical conditions can arise in that period or should we have a medical before each flight? The combined scientific evidence examined by the FAA and CAA concluded that there was very little point in medicals for private pilots.