Organisation Restructure Considerations

[facthunter]

If they only have one job to do and that is to follow CASA's rules, nothing more. . I can't see that you have followed this through. what No training No education. No trying to get the best deal. No social side No member input on rules and structure.. I think we would be looking at BIG changes there. Could we have achieved what has been so far under you proposal?. I can't see how. Just accept what is dished out.? Give me another hobby. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If they only have one job to do and that is to follow CASA's rules, nothing more. . I can't see that you have followed this through. what No training No education. No trying to get the best deal. No social side No member input on rules and structure.. I think we would be looking at BIG changes there. Could we have achieved what has been so far under you proposal?. I can't see how. Just accept what is dished out.? Give me another hobby. Nev

I'd assume it would have an operations manager and a technical manager, just as it does now - except they'd be directors of the company (and not the sole directors) so they would have a stake in getting it right, as well as getting it done. Training comes from the CFIs of the training schools, not from RAA; RAA's function is to set the required standard. The directors would be doing their damndest to get "the best deal". However, they'd bring some real relevant expertise to the management of the organisation. I don't see that that has any effect on the social side of it. Advertising for the TM as though you were advertising for an up-market office boy, won't cut it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Because they care Frank, and because they may be between aircraft, or getting ready for next year, so stop crapping on them. If you want to go after someone, go after the thousands of members who don't even bother to vote and have played the biggest and most unsavoury part in the problems of the last four years.

 

Time and time again, people with good management skills have suggested solutions but been ripped down by the mob, and replaced by nothing.

 

 

[Camel]

An old saying " be part of the solution not the problem "

 

 

[M61A1]

If they only have one job to do and that is to follow CASA's rules, nothing more. . I can't see that you have followed this through. what No training No education. No trying to get the best deal. No social side No member input on rules and structure.. I think we would be looking at BIG changes there. Could we have achieved what has been so far under you proposal?. I can't see how. Just accept what is dished out.? Give me another hobby. Nev

With their SMS, isn't all this following CASA's rules. CASA made the rules, all our people have to do is tick the box when the appropriate paperwork is received, and send out or not, the appropriate certification. I should add this includes the necessary insurance cover. There is no reason other club bodies, though CASA or RAA may seek variations of existing legislation. We still have fly-in's and get togethers without RAA assistance. I see RAA as the Ultralight version of Dept of transport, administration of existing rules, nothing more.

As far as the current rules go, I think that they are fairly reasonable, I have no problem with the organisation evolving as it will, but I don't buy that rubbish about continual growth, what's wrong with being sustainable?

 

Remember, this is just MY opinion, it's not necessarily right.

 

 

[Guest Nobody]

It is interesting to note how many people who don't have enough interest to even be a member, and thereby vote,[and support the costs involved] have so much to say about how an organisation they don't belong to should be run. Why bother?

Don't you think that for so e these issues would prevent them being a member....

 

 

[ruffasguts]

Mick W. In theory yes, but in appearance not good. The matters that would relate to geographical areas specifically would be few, really. Australia is a big place and travel from remote areas difficult and costly. Being a national organisation there may be some requirement for the representation giving some account to states as such. This should be checked so we know what we are talking about. Putting requirements on candidates may be difficult at law. Attitude has been a problem in the past. How does one assess that?. I would like to think we are past a lot of that. Nev

at this stage who cares about appearance just need results

Mick W

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

?..I don't buy that rubbish about continual growth, what's wrong with sustainable?...

You have nailed it, comrade. I remember feeling misgivings years ago when Middo was regularly railing against CASA on the one hand, and spruking big increases in MTOW, above 5,000, etc. Too many of us stayed silent and went along for the ride.

Our leaders seem driven to constantly expand, to "bet the company", when a good manager should be working for long-term sustainability. Which sort gets the bonuses?

 

 

[facthunter]

MickW, IF all the qualified people lived in the one place, certainly you would want the best results by having them in the system . It's totally hypothetical and even if so How would you actually determine the qualifications the delineate those exceptional people. It would still look bad. Why couldn't some be found in(MY) state? There must be a gerrymander etc all the usual accusations. Things not only have to be above board they have to be seen to be, as well. When so many don't bother to vote I don't know why we care so much because obviously THEY don't. The right to vote on matters is a hard won achievement in many parts of the world, and many others don't have it. They just have to put up with what is dished out to them. Being disciplined enough to work as a team would be a good start point. This doesn't mean they have to agree on everything, but they work through it and consult with each other and the members. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

I am not sure that RAA and its board knows where it is going.

 

It certainly has a mandate and delegated authority to manage the registration of planes, certificating pilots and registering FTFs.

 

It has a representation function at a variety of foru, but little feedback

 

RAA doesn't seem to do much on a regional basis other than, under duress, endorse the work of others in regional flyins, such as WA and North Queensland.

 

I'm not sure about other states but the NSW board members don't seem to get out and about and so it is probably just as effective to ring a rep living in NQld from Sydney to have a moan or a chat.

 

Perhaps the board might like to workshop a vision of the future and share it with us. eg All of the above? plus advocating for more airstrips, access to controlled strips and airspace? Middo did mention a rewrite of the manuals but no-one has shared the vision of that.

 

We could go out and create a camel but unless we live in a desert it won't be much use.

 

 

[Powerin]

I have to agree. While I'm all for proportional representation it's difficult to see how this helps RAAus. Do the needs of a RAAus pilot in NthQld really differ from those in Victoria? If a clique of well qualified Caboolture (Qld) people were elected to the board I fail to see how this would harm the interests of myself in Sth NSW (apart from Natfly being held at Caboolture airport ). RAAus and it's members are bound by the regulations in its Ops and Tech manuals, which in turn are controlled by aviation law. The main problem we seem to have at the moment is actually complying with our own regs and the laws that constrain them.

 

Let's get the outfit fixed and running properly. If that takes cutting back the board to a manageable size where important decisions can be made in a timely manner then so be it.

 

I'm rather surprised that Jim has said that the newly accepted model is one where the board is "to set policy and strategy for the organisation". Jim also says this model is used widely in the "outside world". Is this really how the culture within the RAAus thinks? Are they that insular from the "outside world"? Have they really only just now realised that perhaps a governance model that most organisations in the world use might just be something that RAAus could also use??

 

If true, therein lies much of the problem with RAAus.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I have to agree. While I'm all for proportional representation it's difficult to see how this helps RAAus. Do the needs of a RAAus pilot in NthQld really differ from those in Victoria? If a clique of well qualified Caboolture (Qld) people were elected to the board I fail to see how this would harm the interests of myself in Sth NSW (apart from Natfly being held at Caboolture airport ). RAAus and it's members are bound by the regulations in its Ops and Tech manuals, which in turn are controlled by aviation law. The main problem we seem to have at the moment is actually complying with our own regs and the laws that constrain them.Let's get the outfit fixed and running properly. If that takes cutting back the board to a manageable size where important decisions can be made in a timely manner then so be it.

 

I'm rather surprised that Jim has said that the newly accepted model is one where the board is "to set policy and strategy for the organisation". Jim also says this model is used widely in the "outside world". Is this really how the culture within the RAAus thinks? Are they that insular from the "outside world"? Have they really only just now realised that perhaps a governance model that most organisations in the world use might just be something that RAAus could also use??

 

If true, therein lies much of the problem with RAAus.

I suspect that you are entirely correct; RAA knows neither what to do nor how to do it. It has collectively a set of ideas, but it does not know how to decide on priorities or method.

 

George Markey, Bill Dinsmore and I had a very well-formed set of ideas as to what needed to be achieved and what the overall aims were, when we were setting it up in the first place. Those ideas were not airy-fairy things; they were very specific, tangible objectives. It seems to me that neither the membership nor the elected management nowadays have anything like such well-defined objectives; most of the ideas I see in forums (like getting more airfields - as if that were a realistic objective for the RAA controlling body!) are not at all well thought out.

 

Also, we had a good overall knowledge of the regulations. That is clearly lacking throughout RAA in general, though there are individuals who do have a fair knowledge.

 

Times have changed, and the original objectives may not be very relevant now; but the method of getting to them is still valid:

 

Firstly, ask yourselves (set up a referendum, or something of the sort) what are the ten most important issues facing RAA. Then sort out the top four of those.

 

Second, ask yourselves just exactly how each of those objectives can be achieved - and I mean, in detail, step by step, not just arm-waving. This needs expertise in the regulations; although it's largely spelled out in the existing documentation, RAA needs to comprehend the background behind that documentation; CASA is constrained by the regulations just as much as RAA is - and if you understand that, you will see that the CASA requirements for RAA are somebody's interpretation of how RAA needs to behave in order that CASA's obligations under the regulations can be met. With that kind of understanding, progress is possible; otherwise, RAA is simply a squirrel on a wheel.

 

Third, figure out what you need by way of resources to implement the objectives - out of that will come the prescription of the capabilities needed in the key personnel, and a list of specific tasks (like, getting a filing system that works).

 

Cut this down so it has no more that three main objectives, and select the best three people you can find, each to pursue one of these objectives, and then get behind them and give them the resources to do the job.

 

I think you will find that the three principal objectives are fairly easy to determine. Once the tasks that come out of this process are accomplished, then and only then, go after the next three objectives.

 

In other words, stop floundering and get down to tin tacks.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Jim, Can you tell us who is on the constitutional Review committee , and from what states they were elected from. Additionally are there any members on it, who were elected unopposed ?....................Maj....

Sorry for the delayed reply.

The committee is not only board. Lyn Jarvis, Paul Middleton, Michael monk, ed herring. There is another I think.

 

How people are elected and if the are on a committee has nil relevance in my opinion. I think state representation limits the effectiveness of the board. Again my view.

 

Jim

 

 

[Spriteah]

Jim, I thank you for posting the above on the forum. However I do look foward to you replying to my post #3, the membership have a right to know who makes up the 'review' committee .Regardless, the 'Constitutional Review Committee' is just that , a working committee to study a particular area.

They would then make recommendations to the whole board, who would then, with something like this that would effect all members, put it to the membership nationally for a vote.......................Maj........

Maj,

Process is that the crc will eventually put recommendation to board. Board puts to membership via Agm. 75 % vote required to pass same.

 

Jim.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Turbo --- we can have a yarn and describe situations, world wide, however I was more thinking about advice on mechanical things like which bolt to tighten or or which screw to back off or his specialty "the rattle of the rotax", you know those safety things where it would be good that he had a look and listen. Plus the paper work.A milk tanker is a description and photo then the intending purchaser should be all over it, "one hopes".

Regards

 

Keith Page

Lost me here Keith, what has the board selection got to do with technical matters? Jim

 

 

[Spriteah]

I have to agree. While I'm all for proportional representation it's difficult to see how this helps RAAus. Do the needs of a RAAus pilot in NthQld really differ from those in Victoria? If a clique of well qualified Caboolture (Qld) people were elected to the board I fail to see how this would harm the interests of myself in Sth NSW (apart from Natfly being held at Caboolture airport ). RAAus and it's members are bound by the regulations in its Ops and Tech manuals, which in turn are controlled by aviation law. The main problem we seem to have at the moment is actually complying with our own regs and the laws that constrain them.Let's get the outfit fixed and running properly. If that takes cutting back the board to a manageable size where important decisions can be made in a timely manner then so be it.

 

I'm rather surprised that Jim has said that the newly accepted model is one where the board is "to set policy and strategy for the organisation". Jim also says this model is used widely in the "outside world". Is this really how the culture within the RAAus thinks? Are they that insular from the "outside world"? Have they really only just now realised that perhaps a governance model that most organisations in the world use might just be something that RAAus could also use??

 

If true, therein lies much of the problem with RAAus.

Firstly, there is no new model. This is a direction we are looking at and seeking input from the membership. Secondly, of recent times the board has been very involved in the management of the RAA. It has contributed to the situation we now find ourselves in. The organisation has expanded so quickly the board has not. At present the elected representatives are voted in by popularity which effectively means you "can" get a group that want to assist the organisation but have little time to commit and or lack skills to assist in areas of importance. That are the issues we are trying to address. With 13 members on the board any decision that needs to be made takes about three weeks. That is three weeks the office manager waits for direction.

 

Food for thought.

 

Jim.

 

 

[Spriteah]

MickW, IF all the qualified people lived in the one place, certainly you would want the best results by having them in the system . It's totally hypothetical and even if so How would you actually determine the qualifications the delineate those exceptional people. It would still look bad. Why couldn't some be found in(MY) state? There must be a gerrymander etc all the usual accusations. Things not only have to be above board they have to be seen to be, as well. When so many don't bother to vote I don't know why we care so much because obviously THEY don't. The right to vote on matters is a hard won achievement in many parts of the world, and many others don't have it. They just have to put up with what is dished out to them. Being disciplined enough to work as a team would be a good start point. This doesn't mean they have to agree on everything, but they work through it and consult with each other and the members. Nev

FC, on a positive note I can say the last board meeting was very refreshing and the board functioned well as a team and disciplined constructive discussions were the norm.

 

Jim.

 

 

[facthunter]

Jim, The situation you describe probably lead to the (3) running the show, up till now, and the rest being left out of the loop to some extent. Most agree with a reduction to the board numbers but surely with computers we can connect at short notice when required and set up a conferencing situation . Nev

 

 

[Spriteah]

I am not sure that RAA and its board knows where it is going.It certainly has a mandate and delegated authority to manage the registration of planes, certificating pilots and registering FTFs.

 

It has a representation function at a variety of foru, but little feedback

 

RAA doesn't seem to do much on a regional basis other than, under duress, endorse the work of others in regional flyins, such as WA and North Queensland.

 

I'm not sure about other states but the NSW board members don't seem to get out and about and so it is probably just as effective to ring a rep living in NQld from Sydney to have a moan or a chat.

 

Perhaps the board might like to workshop a vision of the future and share it with us. eg All of the above? plus advocating for more airstrips, access to controlled strips and airspace? Middo did mention a rewrite of the manuals but no-one has shared the vision of that.

 

We could go out and create a camel but unless we live in a desert it won't be much use.

Update: both the tech and ops manuals are being worked on as we speak. They are well on there way to completion.

Jim.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Jim, The situation you describe probably lead to the (3) running the show, up till now, and the rest being left out of the loop to some extent. Most agree with a reduction to the board numbers but surely with computers we can connect at short notice when required and set up a conferencing situation . Nev

FC, that is what occurred when I first got on the board. Imagine trying to consult with 13 on every board worthy issue. At least 7 will make that about half the task.

Jim.

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks Jim. I hope it all succeeds . If it doesn't, I'll probably retire. Nev

 

 

[Powerin]

Firstly, there is no new model. This is a direction we are looking at and seeking input from the membership.

Something like this doesn't need member input...it is basic governance 101.

This is on PAGE 1 of one Governance training manual I have (from the Australian Institute of Company Directors):

 

Role of the Board

• Overall business performance - ensuring the association develops and implements strategy and supporting policies to enable it to operate profitably or to provide member services, into the future.
   
   
  
• Overall compliance performance - ensuring the association complies with its legal and policy obligations.
   
   
  

And that's it. Pretty simple stuff to understand (but not always to practice).

 

Seeing we in aviation love our acronymns, here's another golden rule for our board to remember:

 

NIFO......Noses In, Fingers Out. It is the board's job to keep an eagle eye on the running of the organisation (down to the last detail), but keep its fingers out of the running of the organisation.

 

Not having a go at you here Jim, I realise you are on the same page with all this. This is just the way an organisation should run, regardless of members' opinions.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Lynn Jarvis has been around forever, as has Paul Middleton, and I trust Ed Herring. I don't know the new kid on the block Michael Monk, so can't pass judgement there. However of the three options you posted, the first two were unworkable (almost a joke) and the third a possibility....got to start somewhere I suppose !...............Maj....

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Firstly, there is no new model. This is a direction we are looking at and seeking input from the membership. Secondly, of recent times the board has been very involved in the management of the RAA. It has contributed to the situation we now find ourselves in. The organisation has expanded so quickly the board has not. At present the elected representatives are voted in by popularity which effectively means you "can" get a group that want to assist the organisation but have little time to commit and or lack skills to assist in areas of importance. That are the issues we are trying to address. With 13 members on the board any decision that needs to be made takes about three weeks. That is three weeks the office manager waits for direction.Food for thought.

 

Jim.

Don't see at all why it has to take three weeks for a board decision, unless it is one that requires a lot of additional discussion on the subject.

You simply send the question to all by Email, and request a decision within 48 hrs, or the decision is made without your input. Total time there ; 48 hours and about 5 minutes for someone to send out the Emails which I would assume would be the Secretary or presidents responsibility.....how hard is that ???.................Maj....

 

 

[coljones]

Update: both the tech and ops manuals are being worked on as we speak. They are well on there way to completion.Jim.

Jim, will the members get a look at the draft tech and ops manuals before they are implemented. CASA had the draft Reg 61 out for comment before implementation. The draft Reg 61 MOS was out for a long while.

Thanks for the headsup