Third tech manager in 18 months gone........

[facthunter]

There must be some personalities who can control their ego's. I feel a lot more confident about who we have than I used to. Of course they are under numbers at the moment and the techman "thing" is a pity. Don't like to see people who try hard getting hurt. I think techman is a fairly thankless task and unless we support them more , we may have continual stress there. I certainly wouldn't WANT the job, myself. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

There must be some personalities who can control their ego's. I feel a lot more confident about who we have than I used to. Of course they are under numbers at the moment and the techman "thing" is a pity. Don't like to see people who try hard getting hurt. I think techman is a fairly thankless task and unless we support them more , we may have continual stress there. I certainly wouldn't WANT the job, myself. Nev

F T.. They still can not control their egoes, that was demonstrated in the TM debacle. As I see the situation instead of giving Wayne help and direction instead he was humiliated.

Look at Wayne's world, working so hard to get RAAUS back on track when he asked for help he gets none he only received silence and humiliation.

 

I just wonder what life in the office is like, just imagine the stress.

 

The new direction executive is not good direction.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........The new direction executive is not good direction.Regards

Keith Page

No your right without a doubt...everything was just ticky boo until the new team came along hey.....Can I sell you a bridge?

 

There is an element of truth to your post....while we have new and sensible reps ready to step forward, today they can observe but not vote on the board......Its my view that as they are able to vote from the AGM forward and the reps they replace leave then the current stalemate will resolve!

 

But Im guessing that posts from you will continue as they are now unabated! As is your right!

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

There must be some personalities who can control their ego's. I feel a lot more confident about who we have than I used to. Of course they are under numbers at the moment and the techman "thing" is a pity. Don't like to see people who try hard getting hurt. I think techman is a fairly thankless task and unless we support them more , we may have continual stress there. I certainly wouldn't WANT the job, myself. Nev

It needs to be recognised that both the Tech. Manager and the Ops. Manager positions have, in effect, two masters: their employer (RAA, and by definition, its membership) AND the regulations by which compliance and operations must abide. IF there is, to be polite, 'tension' between 'the interests of RAA' and the regulations, the Tech. Manager and the Ops. Manager are in an invidious position.

 

Non-compliance with regulations is not an option. I have it on extremely good authority that a Tech. Manager, some time ago, was 'terminated' (to use the phrase currently in vogue) by a member of the Executive at the time because he was 'being too much like CASA' in his application of the regulations to the registration and acceptance of a claim for an increased MTOW for an aircraft that was contrary to the regulations. The validity of the documentation supplied to RAA that that particular Tech.Manager was unwilling to accept has been commented upon (highly adversely) in a Coronial Findings. It doesn't take a lot of connecting the dots here to work out the particular case, but the point I am trying to make is: the action by that member of the Executive to modify the (correct) decision by the Tech. Manager at the time 'in the interests of the RAA' - presumably - resulted in the RAA and CASA being enjoined in a legal action that has been very, very expensive for RAA. That a 'Coronial Finding' is a factor in all of this, should tell you what OTHER result there was - and no amount of expense for RAA removes that fact that someone died.

 

It is simply not good enough to place a Tech. Manager or an Ops. Manager in the position of having to turn a blind eye to compliance requirements for something as nebulous as 'the interests of RAA.' In fact, it can be - and demonstrably HAS been - culpable and willful negligence - and this is not just an emotive statement, because I am also aware that in this particular case, CASA referred to the Public Prosecutor a recommendation that criminal charges be bought against the person that supplied the documentation to RAA. (That did not proceed, as evidence was considered insufficient to ensure a conviction.)

 

One does not refrain from scaring the horses by moving them when the damn stables is burning down. There is considerable evidence to suggest that RAA members have been treated as mushrooms by past Boards/Executives in regard to too many matters of serious concern: proper accident reporting that highlights problems leading to the accident, the progress of registrations, problems with compliance, the lack of proper response to CASA audits/ requirements/implementation of required systems, timely reporting of important issues - do I need to go on?

 

If we as a group believe that the regulations under which we have to operate are inappropriate, too restrictive, too bureaucratic- then we need to act to change those regulations. We need to become politically active, to lobby our local members of Parliament, campaign, whatever it takes. RAA can be the body to do those things. However: it is absolutely NOT the role of the Tech. Manager or the Ops. Manager to ignore, slide around or fail to adhere to the regulations that currently exist because they do not represent 'the interests of RAA.'

 

The regulations are prescriptive: that means they must be adhered to. 'The interests of RAA' are descriptive: ' this is how we would like to world to be'. The Tech. Manager and the Ops. Manager have a duty of care to the RAA to ensure that the regulations are properly adhered to. If, in fact, the last three Tech.Managers have all failed to do their job of ensuring adherence to the regulations - then that is a very concerning circumstance and the selection of Tech. Managers needs acute scrutiny. Conversely, if they were simply doing the job required of them but it was determined by the Board/Executive that by so doing they were not advancing 'the interests of RAA' - then the scrutiny needs to lie with the understanding by the Board/Executive of just what RAA actually MUST do to keep the members flying - safely.

 

I have (perhaps over-optimistic, but I don't think so) expectations that the incoming Board has at least some members with the expertise and willingness to resolve any existing dichotomy between ' the interests of RAA' and compliance. For too long, 'the interests of RAA' have been a 'whore who would sell herself to any drunk with a spare sixpence'.

 

If we have, indeed, had a succession of Tech. Managers who have been incompetent to apply the regulations to ensure compliance - than it has been most certainly been a very unusual run of bad luck - or bad judgement on the part of those who appointed these people in the first place. If it is the case that by working to maintain compliance with the regulations, these Tech. Managers have failed to - in the eyes of the Board/Executive - to further 'the interests of the RAA', then the scrutiny needs to be applied to why 'the interests of RAA' are at odds with compliance.

 

The simple fact is, that as members, we have NO information by which to make any judgement either way: three Tech. Managers have left with NO explanation of why - beyond 'the interests of RAA.' I'd be far, far more comfortable in accepting this statement if the Board/Executive had a glowing record of stellar achievement on RAA's behalf. Unfortunately, I have to say that the recent performance of the Board/Executive is as transparently obvious as lead and as polished as moss on a rock.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Oscar, I can assure you at the office our resolve is to be fully compliant with the regulations and exemptions of regulations. This is more so at the present moment than ever before. Approaching compliance in a flexible manner was clearly what has occurred in the past and got us into the current mess we face.

 

The interests of the RAA are not at odds with compliance. If they ever were it was misguided by individuals and not the organisation. I'd like to point out that many of the non-compliance issues we are dealing with have been inherited from previous managers. A legacy if you will. Our focus not is to not continue to make further errors in the registration process and 'fix' all the past indiscretions. I would not endorse removing a manager that was competent, performing well but 'not allowing rules to be broken'. I think that is the implication you were leading to in your post.

 

In relation to your comment "Unfortunately, I have to say that the recent performance of the Board/Executive is as transparently obvious as lead and as polished as moss on a rock" I take it both the President and myself are tarnished with the common brush. I am hoping the majority of members will give us a go. I have been and continue to be an advocate for honest and open communications. I have encouraged members to call and communicate with me and other board members. Far too many untruths circulate through the forums, however, that is the electronic communication world we live in. It's easy to throw rocks when you are hundreds of KM's away.

 

I think I might now cease comments on this thread. I feel I have contributed all I can at the present time.

 

Safe flying all.

 

Jim Tatlock

 

RAAus Vic Representative.

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks Jim. Appreciated. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Jim - I thoroughly appreciate your input and find it extremely encouraging - and I would excise 'most recent' from 'recent' in my evaluation of the Board/Executive performance. Let me be very specific here: I consider 'recent' to have ended as of, or soon after, 9 February this year. Neither do I include all members of the Board as being of equal status in the organisation arriving at the position it is now in - I am (and I think most concerned members are also) aware that there have been Board members with what might be loosely described as 'the right stuff' who have largely been sidelined and pretty much disenfranchised by the actions of a powerful few. The minutes of the Feb. 9 meeting clearly show that critical information was being obfuscated or simply withheld from some Board members.

 

I hold no specific candle for Steve Bell, Adam Finn or Wayne Matthews. What does concern me is whether the turn-over of Tech. Managers has been based on a proper evaluation of the job they were doing or on 'other' criteria. As mere members, we have no information on which to base a belief one way or the other. If, indeed, RAA has not been able to attract a series of Tech. Managers with the necessary level of competence, then the question has to be asked: why is this? Is RAA unwilling to provide sufficient budget to the position to get the person it needs (and if so, how much of the damn salary increase for Tizzard should have been directed towards obtaining a sufficiently competent Tech. Manager at the time - and whose neck should be on the block for THAT decision?).

 

Jonathan Aleck's discussion paper is a signal that RAA has - to be crude - to get its sh1t in order or be sidelined. The Tech. Manager and the Ops. Manager are the front-line troops for that. They need to be the right people and to be supported by the right operational environment. It's a holistic approach that is needed now.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Jim, your honesty and openness, and the fact that you have participated on this forum is appreciated...Don't be a stranger.......Maj....

 

 

[Teckair]

how much of the damn salary increase for Tizzard should have been directed towards obtaining a sufficiently competent Tech. Manager at the time - and whose neck should be on the block for THAT decision?)..

Yes very good question.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Turbs

 

I note you gave my last post a "creative" remark.

 

My post set out my considered response to your somewhat provocative response to an earlier one of mine.

 

I found your remark neither funny nor acceptable in the circumstances and I think you owe me an apology.

 

I'm happy to argue the law with another lawyer, which you aren't, and I'm happy to proffer what little expertise I have, but I don't need your aggressive and confrontational manner directed at me.

 

Thank you

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

I find it very disappointing that you would attempt to denigrate my sources without even knowing who they are.

 

I'm concerned with what has been done to a decent and honourable man, and that's why I recommended members find out for themselves.

 

 

[old pilot]

Oscar, I can assure you at the office our resolve is to be fully compliant with the regulations and exemptions of regulations. This is more so at the present moment than ever before. Approaching compliance in a flexible manner was clearly what has occurred in the past and got us into the current mess we face.The interests of the RAA are not at odds with compliance. If they ever were it was misguided by individuals and not the organisation. I'd like to point out that many of the non-compliance issues we are dealing with have been inherited from previous managers. A legacy if you will. Our focus not is to not continue to make further errors in the registration process and 'fix' all the past indiscretions. I would not endorse removing a manager that was competent, performing well but 'not allowing rules to be broken'. I think that is the implication you were leading to in your post.

 

In relation to your comment "Unfortunately, I have to say that the recent performance of the Board/Executive is as transparently obvious as lead and as polished as moss on a rock" I take it both the President and myself are tarnished with the common brush. I am hoping the majority of members will give us a go. I have been and continue to be an advocate for honest and open communications. I have encouraged members to call and communicate with me and other board members. Far too many untruths circulate through the forums, however, that is the electronic communication world we live in. It's easy to throw rocks when you are hundreds of KM's away.

 

I think I might now cease comments on this thread. I feel I have contributed all I can at the present time.

 

Safe flying all.

 

Jim Tatlock

 

RAAus Vic Representative.

Good on you Jim Tatlock well said

 

 

[octave]

I find it very disappointing that you would attempt to denigrate my sources without even knowing who they are.I'm concerned with what has been done to a decent and honourable man, and that's why I recommended members find out for themselves.

Turbo You say that "the members should find out for themselves" OK, then I guess I have to ask someone who knows whatever it is we are supposed to "find out about". So I presume you have this information, so I am asking you to tell me what it is that the "members should know" if you don't wish to say publicly then message me. So do you have information or not?

 

 

[turboplanner]

There's nothing like the grapevine for speed and accuracy Octave, you should talk to your own members.

 

 

[Keith Page]

There's nothing like the grapevine for speed and accuracy Octave, you should talk to your own members.

Better still.... direct from the horse's mouth I find that very accurate.

Sometimes that information is given in the strictest of confidence.

 

That is the problem Turbs we must construct the story around the know information.

 

The other good one, one gets to know who is fibbing as the truth is a known.

 

Keep going Turbs you are doing a good task.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[old pilot]

There seems to be a lot of so called experts in this forum ,most people in here that do no something have forgotten more than the experts will ever get to know ,so why not just let it go and get on with what's going to count in the future no point going on about the past and of cos we all know what experts are

 

 

[fly_tornado]

old pilot: sounds like you are new to the interwebs, it's like this all the time.

 

 

[facthunter]

Talking about "straight from the horses mouth", There may be many horses who don't speak with the same message and may hold an honest view that yxz is the way it is. IF they are working together, and think they are getting somewhere that is a good sign. ( an advance on the past). Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

There seems to be a lot of so called experts in this forum ,most people in here that do no something have forgotten more than the experts will ever get to know ,so why not just let it go and get on with what's going to count in the future no point going on about the past and of cos we all know what experts are

OP, I certainly don't consider myself a so - called expert, However there is additional info that was sent to me and quite a few others, that may cause one to form an alternate opinion on what may have occurred, particularly between the GM and Wayne. This information was sent to me by Wayne and therefore is possibly only a one- sided view, although there is a lot of interesting content in it from the GM direct also.

 

I do not have the option of sharing it with you all, as it was sent to me in confidence at the time. Should Wayne decide to post it on this forum than that would be great, however if he decides not to, than I would also understand...........Maj...

 

 

[kaz3g]

OP, I certainly don't consider myself a so - called expert, However there is additional info that was sent to me and quite a few others, that may cause one to form an alternate opinion on what may have occurred, particularly between the GM and Wayne. This information was sent to me by Wayne and therefore is possibly only a one- sided view, although there is a lot of interesting content in it from the GM direct also.I do not have the option of sharing it with you all, as it was sent to me in confidence at the time. Should Wayne decide to post it on this forum than that would be great, however if he decides not to, than I would also understand...........Maj...

And therein lies the problem, Maj.

 

Wayne is at liberty to release his personal information in whatever form he sees fit. He isn't bound by confidentiality as there is apparently no confidential settlement (his employment was terminated within the probation period so no payout of contract involved).

 

RAAus on the other hand is not absolved from the legal requirement to maintain confidentiality because the information held by it falls under the Privacy Act. It can't even do much to correct any errors, inadvertent or otherwise, in the information Wayne releases to those of you who are within his trusted circle.

 

Wayne has been through what was no doubt an emotional and traumatic event and his perceptions of what transpired may not be conducive of an unbiased and objective assessment of them. And people reading or hearing his account will also respond in a way that is coloured by their own perceptions of how it all comes together.

 

Some, unfortunately, will even attempt to use it to push their own dissatisfaction and "political" agendas. None of us will probably ever know exactly what happened to lead to wayne's dismissal; at least unless it is challenged in the Commission and the evidence of both sides is revealed.

 

I actually know what it is like to be dismissed from a job you have been working at most assiduously and I empathise with Wayne. I wish him and his family great success in his next endeavour and hope he can put this miserable experience behind in very short time.

 

Kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

Eloquent as usual you little Gem Kaz.

 

I think regardless of what transpired, there is little doubt Wayne put in a mammoth effort.

 

He will be better off out of the stress and doing his own thing. We all wish him the best and hope just gets on with his own affairs.

 

Lets put it behind us and get on with saving this organisation shall we everyone.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

With regard to three Tech Managers in 18 months I would remind all that Steve Bell resigned. His employment was not terminated. I believe it was in the best interests of RA-Aus and Steve Bell that he did resign. I have never understood the summary dismissal of Adam Finn and have never known enough of the background to be able to make a judgement.

 

I believe Wayne accepted the job in good faith and put in a mighty effort to get the job done. For various reasons that didn't happen. Wayne is now well shot of RA-Aus and is in the process of putting the experience behind him and getting on with his life. Nothing that is discussed here is going to change that situation.

 

As has been said above, there is no way both sides of this story can be laid out for all to see in a public discussion. A few people who are close to Wayne and have had discussions with Board Members who are prepared to speak frankly off the record, can form a view. But I doubt that there is any way their conclusions and the reasoning behind can be discussed publicly.

 

As a member, I am prepared to give the current Executive and the incoming Board the benefit of any doubt and let them get on with the future. Unlike the previous Exec who gave us all sorts of undertakings at the Feb 9th EGM and lived up to none of them I have confidence that RA-Aus is now being steered in the right direction. All my interactions with he new GM give me a confidence that I never had with his predecessor.

 

The turnaround is not going to happen overnight. There are many ills of previous administrations that have to be overcome. What I am confident about is that simply extrapolating the performance of the previous Exec (Runciman/Middleton/Reid) and applying that to the majority of the new Exec (Birrell & Tatlock) would be shallow and incorrect thinking.

 

With the coming AGM, we start with a new and vastly superior approach and commitmanet to governance and systems improvement than we have seen in many, many years.

 

Don

 

 

[kgwilson]

Controls? Almost without fail the internal audit team in their 12 monthly cycle will without doubt have as an activity an audit of financial controls and segregation of duties.

We in RAAus are conspicuously absent in any form of internal audit....its why CASA is the first to know of failures and we don't even act on them then! We have passing review of financial controls with our external auditor, but to me that doesn't equate to an internal audit capability reviewing these things. Middo choosing to spend whatever it takes to send out a political announcement in advance of the Feb9th meeting will never be taken to task even though it is clearly listed in the last review of the 12-13 FY actuals, that he acted well in excess of his delegation. A focus on Governance and controls would ensure that the expenditure wasn't allowed to be incurred at the time, let alone questioned after the fact.

 

I know we aren't top 500 in size and certainly cant afford the overheads that such organisations have but not having an internal audit capability where, as we have already seen, failure is a direct threat to continued viability, is appalling in my opinion.

 

Andy

Effective internal audit is in my opinion one of the most fundamental requirements of any organisation to ensure good governance. I worked very closely with internal auditors many years ago when developing systems for the company I worked for. It was all about ensuring financial and management controls and segregation of duties. RAAus has a very poor track record of good financial controls, Andy's example being just one of them.

 

Why did CASA come in and Audit our processes & procedures? Because we weren't and they found holes everywhere, 4 times!!! A new GM & Tech Manager alone won't resolve these things unless the appropriate internal controls are created to ensure that they do and that these are audited to establish compliance.

 

BTW the company I worked for is now about 20 times bigger than it was with annual revenues of more than $20 billion. Good Governance backed by effective internal controls and audit processes have been a major contributor to its success.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Effective internal audit is in my opinion one of the most fundamental requirements of any organisation to ensure good governance. I worked very closely with internal auditors many years ago when developing systems for the company I worked for. It was all about ensuring financial and management controls and segregation of duties. RAAus has a very poor track record of good financial controls, Andy's example being just one of them.Why did CASA come in and Audit our processes & procedures? Because we weren't and they found holes everywhere, 4 times!!! A new GM & Tech Manager alone won't resolve these things unless the appropriate internal controls are created to ensure that they do and that these are audited to establish compliance.

 

BTW the company I worked for is now about 20 times bigger than it was with annual revenues of more than $20 billion. Good Governance backed by effective internal controls and audit processes have been a major contributor to its success.

KG, Have you offered your audit process experience to our Board? I'm sure they need some guidance in developing this area.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Good luck with that, I have told 2 board members about how hackable the current authentication system is for the member's portal, so far they are taking the stance of doing nothing because they can't see the issue.