terryc

TTerry's, Did I at any stage suggest it be an annual requirement ?????....go back and read it again please. I was suggesting when the aircraft comes up for re-registration after being out of the system for some time, (de-registered) and when the aircraft changes hands, and the rego is transferred to a new owner. You have to get a UACR done at that time anyway ...it would be an appropriate time to do an airworthiness check. If the machine is in good shape and airworthy, then no drama...if it's not or requires serious and safety related work, then it needs to be done before somebody gets hurt................Maj...

Sorry Maj I read the above and misinterpreted what you were saying. When I read re-registered I thought you meant yearly registration but I see you meant re-registered after a long lapse. If most accidents are pilot error how would this change be of any value at all. If it could be shown that there is a large number of raa aircraft flying with faults or there are deaths as a result of faulty aircraft then ok. The problem I have is I like things the way they are where the responsibility sits with the owner and pilot. I as a pilot don't rely on an l2 to tell me my plane is ok to fly I decide myself if it's ok to fly. I do the maintenance, I want the responsibility. For people who are unable to maintain their aircraft or don't have the hands on skills then by all means get it done by some one else but don't inflict this on every body else with a new set of costs and everything else that goes along with it.

Andy, I wasn't suggesting at all that it is "juniors", in fact just the opposite, experienced pilots who fly infrequently. And what would I do ?......it is obvious we need timely accident data, how can we address problem areas if we don't know what they are !..This is a big point with me, and I do intend to put it on the table. This is valuable info being lost.Having six full logbooks means nothing if you haven't flown in two years, your back to square one almost. A student wh just did his first two hours solo is safer than you are.

I would also like to see more scruteneering going on at BFR time, by examiners....regardless of TT experience or not. A simple check of one's logbook shows if you have done 10 hours in the last two years, or 200. The BFR should then be tailored accordingly. I know many instructors already do this. The guy with 10 hrs in the last two years needs to get the works, and nothing wrong with throwing the works at the experienced guy either, I wouldn't mind. This is a valuable opportunity by instructors to raise the currency bar a little.

 

I also believe that some accidents are caused by aircraft that are not in ok condition, or as they should be. Aircraft pulled out of a garage after 15 years for example, and killing someone on the next flight. Every time an aircraft is re-registered or changes owners a UACR is required to be completed by an L2. This really is a tick the box episode, and carries no guarantee of airworthiness, although many mistakenly think it does.

 

All liabilities aside, we need a proper airworthiness inspection at that time, with a sign off by a L2 or higher for the rego to be granted. If the owner is presented with a list of things to fix that is greater than the cost of the aircraft, then so be it. Maybe it is time for that machine to receive some serious work, or be retired permanently. I'd rather see that occur than having that sub-standard aircraft kill a new pilot down the road who thinks it's the greatest aeroplane ever constructed, and knows no better because he /she is new to the sport....additionally any engine failure should be actively investigated for a cause or continued trend, especially if they are re-occurring ......Maj...

aerochute kev, for those that don't get it we must say it again and again, there is no situation that exists that requires anybody to step outside the guidelines of good governance . I agree with you when it comes to a stalemate go to the membership. It's not that hard.

Daffydd, I too have a background in GA maintenance, plus I trained under the FAA system of doing things, and still hold an FAA airframe and Powerplant license, so I do have a good understanding of what you speak. Basically as you must know it all pertains to the GA side of things. Obviously many of the parameters in respect to certification must also apply to most rec aircraft as they do fly fine , and structural failure is about as rare as it is in the GA side of things.But Ultralights are different...they always have been, most weren't designed in the first place to confirm to any 'standards ' and certainly not those laid down for GA ,aircraft. I am reminded of something Wayne Fisher told me once, which is a good example of what I am trying to get across. He was working to gain certification for the Austflight Boonah produced Drifters. The CASA certification inspector (one would imagine a CAR 35 eng) turned up with his clipboard ticking boxes. Wayne demonstrated the aircraft in flight , and on landing the CASA man asked what airfoil is on the drifter. Wayne's response " at what stage of flight ? " This floored the inspector and he had no response and no box to tick.

 

As you know most Dacron sailed wings will change their profile in flight, as wing- loadings change. In fact this inflight inbuilt stability factor went a long way towards making the earlier ULs do what they did , and giving them the inbuilt 'stability factor ' that they possessed . Most weren't built conforming to any standard, in fact many started, as did many successfull aircraft from the very dawn of aviation, as a chalk line on a hangar floor.

 

We must be carefull in attempting to 'pigeon-hole' our unique aircraft, as a lot of their continued success' comes from being able to work a bit outside of the square . Many of our aircraft are unique in their design, development and capabilities..............Maj...

Why can't something like an I of A be a contract between the operational side of Raa and the board as a means of stopping the board from sticking their nose into operational matters, hence they could do I dunno board things maybe. [ my first and last attempt at humour ]

Terryc,What I have found is that communications within the board are difficult to say the least. Face to face meetings would fix this however costs are significant to get the board together. Not to mention board members being able to matchup at the same time. I think the best first step would be to remodel the structure to reduce the amount of board members to 7-9. That will start to help. And yes 4 meetings per year face to face trying to blend with events to reduce costs to the members.

 

The board need to focus on their core duties. Not try and manage RAA. Sensible communications and not Egos need to prevail. I am hopeful that a few new faces on the board will improve things but that might not be the case as two weeks ago I thought we were progressing well but that has come to a halt due to certain events.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

The problem with this Jim, is that the Manager position is ICAO mandatory.You could do what you are suggesting in addition to the Manager, and given the amount of work which has to be done to set the system up, and which will disappear immediately it has been bedded down, that would not be a bad idea.

But if a major incident occurred (or even a minor one), without the prescribed Manager, RAA would be legally non-compliant, and that could be very costly indeed.

 

Where the need for the dedicated person really kicks in, is ensuring and managing ongoing compliance and auditing teams and FTF's, and that's not a part time job.

 

Going down the path you are suggesting is also similar to the shortcut of just signing off the registrations.

Keith and others. I do not believe that CASA are likely to act on the RAA in the immediate future. I can assure you many on the board are attempting to gain CASA assurance the correct way (via correct governance) and CASA are well aware of that fact.Several suggestions have been put to the board and what's left of the Executive to consider a consultancy group who have experience with aviation SMS implementation and have done so with CASA support for similar organisations as ours. On the surface it would appear to be significantly cheaper using this method (a proven method) than to implement a person into a role who might or might not be able to create a quality SMS system. The consultancy course will be much quicker as they have all the basis ready to go and amend to RAA.

 

I hope the full board seriously consider this option. At this point five of ten are supportive of this direction.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

Good morning AllI am stuck here, wondering why all the anamosity, Myles has the task of getting the SMS up and running we need people with the knowledge to get this just started, I said "just started" then get it running all that is not done in five minuites. We all should be helping keep the building standing not trashing it.

RAAus need the SMS and quick and now most people on this forum are dreaming up ways why it is wrong, """""stop"""" get to and make it work as I am not to keen on the alternative.

 

ED tried.. Myles tried.. I added my little bit via this forum.

 

As I can seen the alterative:- Administrator appointed by CASA.. Interim board appointed my CASA.. More rules appointed by CASA.. Etc. etc. appointed by CASA so

 

the list goes on. Who wants that. Good Eh?????????????????? I do not.

 

OR the worst case RAAus closed down completely with a fleet of planes grounded and a bunch of members yelling for blood.

 

That will be exciting Eh???????????. I will join the angry mob.

 

Most of this chirping (they broke the rules mob) is only coming from the "key board warriors".

 

The others (the happy people) are out enjoying their aircraft --- If you the chirping mob get RAAus closed down this happy mob will get angry then watch out.

 

"Angry mob vs. The key board warriors." Will be a good game for CASA to watch.

 

What I am suggesting put the knives and hatchets away even put them in your next batch on concrete you do not need them. Get your thoughts in a positive way and get things to work instead of all this white anting. CASA is watching and noting, I have seen information with those references- one does not have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

'Keeping CASA happy' is really rather a simplistic way of stating the priorities for RAA. Unless there were to be a significant change in federal legislation that removed the entire responsibility for the operation of certain classes of aviation ( e.g. us!) outside of CASA's purview, it will remain the authority charged with 'safety' of aviation and aviation-related activities. While there are far too many instances of CASA utilising the 'safety' argument to justify the intrusion of its influence into areas that have, at the most generous appreciation, little or no effect on safety (see also: 'empire-building'), the fact remains that whilst ever people shout at 'the government' to 'do something' about whatever particular issue has enraged them, if aviation is the source of the complaint, CASA is the authority expected to do that 'something'.Hence, a significant proportion of the rules, regulations etc. that CASA imposes, it does so in response to pressure applied to it (or in anticipation of pressure being applied to it.) The delegation by CASA of certain functions to Sport Aviation bodies such as RAA, GFA etc. is really a simple concept: CASA is saying: 'here's what has to be done, we pass it over to you to do it.' That does NOT mean that CASA is relinquishing the authority to set the rules (indeed it cannot actually DO that), but that is passing on the responsibility for adhering to them to a secondary party.

 

Short of achieving a change in legislation that specifically takes the operation of RAA-class aircraft out of CASA's responsibility (and good luck with that, especially in the current climate where 'ultralights' are very much over-represented in the media for all the worst-possible reasons), we are stuck with adherence to CASA's mandate. That is, as has been pointed out, the NECESSARY part of RAA's existence: to provide an organisation to discharge the delegated responsibilities. The rest of the format of RAA's existence - the governance structure, the financial arrangements etc. - are mechanisms we choose in order to be able to undertake the discharge of those responsibilities.

 

We do not have to, for instance, publish a magazine, or hold a NATFLY, or even have an HQ premises. We do not have to adopt any specific organisational form with contingent rules for its operation, although common sense says one is a prerequisite for being able to discharge the responsibilities that RAA has chosen to take on itself. So the analogy to 2-part epoxy, where each part is of equal importance, is really not quite correct - in our case, the horse is firmly ahead of the cart.

 

If the delegation to undertake certain activities were to be removed from RAA, we would be no more than effectively a national aero club. That is why compliance with CASA's requirements is the primary concern we have. Many aspects of the way that one can operate one's RAA-class aircraft have been forged over a considerable period of time ( e.g. the entire maintenance regime), and serious consideration needs to be given to what effect the loss of, or serious changes to, these matters would cause individual members. To those who are somewhat per-occupied with governance etc. matters, I would say this: when the chips are down (and they are falling like monsoon rain at the moment), what do you place as your priority: being able to continue to operate your RAA-class aircraft generally within the type of operational environment you now have, or securing a more perfect organisation (whatever that might entail?)

I would be the last person wanting Ed's head on a plate and maybe would have done the same thing if I was a member of the board [no I wouldn't] BUT I certainly would not be offended if I then came under censure and I would certainly be saying I would NEVER do that again. Something I was taught as a child was to accept your punishment like a man.

I don't know what forum you read [ pmccarthy] but from my point of view this one is across the board a very informative, well reasoned and forward thinking with a strong push for change. The only point of debate is how to go about it, who would lead it, and is it too late to salvage what we have and just make some changes to it. It's the poor performance of the board over a couple of years that has brought about the secrecy and lack of communication Nobody want's to communicate their own failings. So for starters this needs to change. The way we vote for our reps who in a lot of cases we don't even know them, this needs to change. The board interfering in management this needs to change. The board not knowing their proper role also needs to change. People who think they have something to offer without analyzing what it is they bring to the table, this needs to change. Six monthly meetings is absolute rubbish, how can a board operate without forming a bond of unity which can't happen with twice yearly meetings. The executive is no longer required to operate as it does and needs a re-think. I can go on and on. If the board operated as it should I don't believe we would be in this mess at all, to the contrary we could be an example of excellence under this model. Having said that maybe to achieve all this it might be easier to change our operations completely.

Quite so, point taken.Just getting a bit tired trying to make the blind see the obvious, I wonder how many different ways you have to say the same thing. The information is all there but some people would rather derail the Association on a Principle than preserve the privilege to fly and sort out their personal issues in good time.

 

There'll be a change of tune if the SMS is delayed and CASA decide to let us have some time on the ground to catch up to where we ought to have been years ago ... the urgency to get regos renewed would soon fade away until the rest is done too.

If we end up being grounded and as a result we can have a board that respects proper process then it will be all worthwhile. I hope that doesn't happen of course. There can never be any excuse for what has been going on with Raa, over the last 12 months. You are entitled to your opinion but please stop trying to bully people into submission.

There comes a time when the only way to fix something that is completely broken, or out of hours, is to re-build; and the RAAus operation is both.I began following this forum after a letter from our Club regarding RAAus membership was ignored, as was the follow-up phone call to the RAAus President. This forum has been one of the few insights into the governance, management and operations of RAAus, and while discussions are mainly management and operations oriented, provides those of us removed from the action with at least some indication of what is transpiring within the organisation. I say "mainly management and operations" because that is where most of the comments and opinions are directed. It became evident to me as an Ex General Manager and current Board member of community based businesses, the issues of governance and strategic planning, were at the heart of the problems that confront RAAus .

 

At that time I began posting my concerns on this forum and have been consistent in my criticisms of the confusion that exists between true governance, and management.

 

This is not about personalities. It is however about a culture that exists within RAAus that must be purged before proper governance and management process can be implemented. A fresh start based on a team approach that makes a clear distinction between the Chairman/Board and the CEO/Staff and additionally the obligations we might have to those we partner with; be they Government, through Deeds of Agreement, or like associated organisations, via Memorandums.

 

In the absence of a strategic plan, embraced by the membership, RAAus is rudderless. And, as I said in a previous post - simply to overlay good governance over poor operations does not solve the problem. Lets continue to draw our Board members from our membership, but when necessary, skill them in corporate governance - rather than move to a professional academic model of the corporate sector.

 

I for one was very disappointed at the lack of action since the Feb EGM (which we attended). I would suspect that we now face a serious situation with regard to RAAus and its relationship with CASA and can understand CASA's frustration at not only the inaction, but the lack of real understanding of government process.

 

RAAus needs to buy in professional help as the back-yard approach to restoration is no longer appropriate (if it ever was). For this to happen the current board must resolve to put in place the actions that will set the re-structure in motion. After all the stewardship of RAAus is their primary role. Not to act would, in my opinion, run the risk of serious ramifications for the Board and, of course, its members. Without a formal relationship with CASA, RAAus would become an empty shell with the decisions of recreational aviation being made by others.

 

We have a board........lets put the pressure on them to respond before its too late.

 

Pete

This is not an emergency[bad choice of words] What I meant to say was DON'T PANIC.

This is not an emergency if it's true but one last chance to get it right. They had better not stuff this up if they do there will be no other chances. This is what I was talking about a couple days ago about getting two capable people to sit down and draw up a plan to get out of this mess. Casa has given them 24 hrs.

The process is still the same but I would include legals as well and the ball should be already rolling. For those very skilled and switched on people on this forum [ seven in total ] it's time to offer yourselves as a caretaker admin in the short term until we have full elections and start again.

Hi Marty, there is a variation signed by chis heinz showing the details. I'll see if I can find it. I think I saw it on the matronics website.

Terry

Far from being concerned at the tone of this thread I'm excited knowing that despite the gross lack of communication from the board to the members somehow we can gleam a bit here and a bit there and come up with a shadow of what's going on and it appears we have a number a serious issues. There are a couple of comments I would like to make.

I've employed staff for the best part of thirty years and my experience tells me if I hear rumblings of discontent I need to address it now, not tomorrow or next week. If I wait till someone comes to me it's too late. So when I hear this constant call to ring your reps I know firstly it won't happen and secondly it's too late. Why can't we learn that communication starts with the board and our reps not the other way around, I remember Ian making a comment about this very thing, "if I get back on the board I'll show you what communication is'' or something to that effect. With the obvious heightened awareness of the members at the moment just imagine if we all rang our reps. While this idea continues that we are responsible for communication, the board has an excuse not to start.

Secondly, I don't know Ed and cannot comment either way on his suitability for the president's Job, but I can say this, nothing I have said would lead to the need for Ed to resign, the same as facthunter's comment. The board should censure him and he should accept it then get on with what so urgently needs doing.

Just a thought, Communication is a skill developed and if it's lacking on the board why not ask for a retired member to assist the board in this regard.

Hi planesmaker, all of what you say I agree with.

Turbo. Before I answer this question lets get some honesty going. For the information of the others reading this Turbo has asked questions or made comments related to a particular post made by Ed to the Board members forum. So Turbo knows the answers before asking the questions and I presume is attempting (hoping) that myself or John mislead this forum so we can be discredited. That is the only reason I can explain your actions and questioning. I presume you and Ed are friends or at least close in some manner. Perhaps a member of a Facebook lounge. I'm not one to lie.The appointment of a Safety/Training manager was on Ed's wish list yes. Did he have my unanimous support to ignore protocol and the constitution absolutely not. Does he now have my support. No.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

I've always enjoyed his posts and respected his views but I must say I'm a little bit disappointed.

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

I think it's Ed that knows what has to be done, and the others where it's a bit overwhelming. LOL it's not four hours.

and further to the above these guys are unpaid servants, they should not have to carry this burden alone even if it of their own making. GET HELP.

I just reread your post turbs and if the train was at break neck speed then it must have left the station some time ago. Why the bloody hell were we not told. Why put the cfi's in such a position. If you are at a loss and don't know what to do get out of the bloody way for someone who does. It's not rocket science.

Call in the big guns, all hands on deck and all that. Four hours with a couple of competent lay people [or a paid consultant] and map out a strategic plan to meet your targets. Don't do what has been done before and bubble along and fail. The problem has only grown big because of incompedence. My advice to Ed and the board is GET HELP.

Terry, I don't think anyone has gone into bat for no process and poor governance.But continuing to fight each new President like a kangaroo dog humping over thin air doesn't make a lot of sense when this President and the last one were clearly frustrated beyond endurance at having to get something going when the CASA train was coming for them at express speed.

I hadn't realised how close the train was or how quickly action would be required in the field but it's days and weeks, not months and years.

 

The CFI's have a massive task to do NOW to be finished by August - I feel sorry for Myles; it think it history might show he volunteered for a near impossible task in the timeframe, and this debate we've been having will be irrelevant when everyone realises the urgency - registrations all over again.

why is it that people will stray from the facts, and to try to cover that fact up they add emotive arguments to their position. Stick to the facts.

Turbs puts forward a good argument for the executive being one but we all know that it doesn't ring true. Why has a small number changed their position and gone into bat for no process and poor governance. This goes against the whole purpose of the feb meeting. Some how we have gone from being horrified of what this president has done to a being a look after Ed club. We need to remind ourselves why we are in this mess in the first place. There has been a couple of comments in this thread that I would like to understand better. 1/ If the board have been working on this safety officer position for 12 months or more and have been frustrated by some members of the board then who are they, why were we not told and what is their reason for opposing it.

2/If caza are asking us to fund a safety officer which is outside of our deed of agreement why were we not told.