rhysmcc

Makes sense that courses would be done at various locations to cover the whole of the membership I think we have arrived at the best approach for RAA to reach and serve the majority of members across the nation; RAA HQ based in Brisbane, close to CASA, bigger employee base, RPT access for those who need to attend (board members etc), good services (fast internet for our new IT) etc NatFly hosted by different towns/fields each year, allowing greater exposure to members and the wider public Training forums, again hosted at different fields across the country to improve the exposure to the members.

Does anyone know if work on such a system is taking place? Is there a project committee put together to investigate the requirements, analysis and design of such a system which then can be put to tender? I'm sure from 9000 odd members a few must have the skills to assist in such a major development for our orginisiation (and I'm not talking about the actual design/coding, but decide what the system needs to do so it can be tendered out).

It really needs to be in the catchment of a capital city, would be alot easier to attract top range managers if we could offer a capital city location as opposed to regional nsw or vic. Within easy drive of Brisbane make sense, easy RPT access, CASA HQ and some decent airfields to choose from.

Some kind of Skype or video streaming of AGM's with electronic voting on resolutions, something we should be aiming towards. Such technology should also be used for board meetings, so they can be more regular without directors having to head to ACT.

What good is voting for a representitve if they are not going to represent your views and opinions. It's very unusual for a representative body NOT to show who voted how.

Brisbane, RPT access, multiple ga fields within 1hr.

the upper winds might have been a northerly, but we were very much getting a south easterly at the field. I also thought the jumpers were coming quite fast and hard, maybe they were told to hurry up as the fireworks were late and had to wait until they were all on the ground.

you should be able to use iBooks to open/store ERSA as a PDF. iBooks is a free app from apple

Would training for your cross country or other endorsement be considered private operations or some other type of operation (i.e. training), therefore wouldn't come under: (i) private operations including glider towing but not aerial application operations Just what I came up with after a first read. You could also argue it wouldn't come under (ii) therefore it must be considered a private operation, unless it was there intention not to let you gain any endorsements after your pilot certificate of your own built aircraft.

Doesn't seem that hard to put a notice on the raa website for all members to get the information at the same time, but your right, 10,000 members could all call and find out the details.

Would it be appropriate to have the one manager responsible for all these similar systems or will it compromise the checks and balances? Would a subcommittee of 3 or so qualified volunteers be another way to go, full time for a period to get the systems up and running and then regular audits conducted during the year, with the day to day responsibilities falling to a position already in the office?

I'm not sure we really need another layer/group of people in the fold. What we really should be focusing on is expanding "rules" around the current roles, or better describe them. The Board should be made up of 7 or 9 elected representatives (with a single chairperson to act as liaison), who's job is to set the policy/strategic direction of the association (on behalf of members) and provide oversight of the management team. The management team would be appointed by the board (following recruiting procedures) and would be responsible for the day to day running of the association in accordance to the policy set down by the board and meeting all CASA requirements/regulations. Communication does also seem to be a major issue in RA-AUS so it would be worthwhile to have strict minimums in the constitution regarding reports to the members and board meetings. Something along the lines of board meeting at least once a month (via phone/skype/video hookup) with at least 4 (could be reduced to 2 if RA-AUS got some decent video conferencing setup) face to face meetings (one a quarter). Minutes (full, detailed and complete) to all board meetings should be published to members (online) within 7 days of the meeting. We should even go as far as detailing the minimum agenda requirements (i.e. Reports from each of the department heads, accounts/budgets, regulator correspondence, etc)

They may well be expensive, but when it comes to members safety, money well spent. You can't expect to hire a single "STCC" and expect them to put in place a robust safety program, there's a reason so many aviation companies outsource, you just can't expect to have all the expertise in one guy (or board of directors). Pay now and do it right, or keep forking out money over and over while we spend another 3 years trying to work this out.

I totally agree, with one minor improvement. Remove the Executive, they shall not be required. Keep the elected representation on the board (reduced to 7-9 members), lead and assisted by a chairperson. They look at the bigger picture and future of recreational aviation, strategically set the policy of the association. The Management team, lead by the GM with his staff, operating within the policy set down by the board, would be responsible for the daily operations of the association; registrations, licensing, training, safety, compliance etc. GM would be responsible to the board (and thus the members), much the same a company CEO would answer to a board of directors and shareholders. Appropriate consults/agencies should also be employed to insure members are getting the most out of their association (and money), this could be professional company such as Aerosafe to setup and manage SMS, Accountants to provide finance advice, Law firms to provide legal advice, Auditors to conduct regular compliance, safety and finanial oversight. What we don't need (and this isn't reflected against anyone currently in this positions or nominated for) is a President who tries to "run" the association, a Treasurer who isn't a professional in accounting or finance, who may struggle counting the simplest of beans. These jobs should be left to professionals who are employed by the members on merit. We also need the correct and most robust systems in place, SMS, Registration databases, communications, website/IT, flight safety, insurance/legal.

Where do you get this information? Requests by members for a copy of the Deed of Agreement (which from earlier posts indicate your not a current member) have been met with a firm no, based on "confidentaly" clauses. Are we meant to take your word on the fact such agreement includes a requirement for a SMS Manager to be appointed? You're quoting a document which is still only a draft by ICAO which has NO regulatory authority, to base your requirement that RA-AUS must have a sole manager responsible for the SMS. This is the issue I am disagreeing with, as reading the same documents as you, can not come to this black and white conclusion. I am not disagreeing with you regarding the need (and requirement) for a SMS or the urgency of having it setup and complied with. Unless you're here on behalf of CASA, then no I (and as far as I can tell, other posters) are not arguing with CASA, but YOU'RE interpretation of their position. The Deed of Agreement is the contract, agreed to by RA-AUS and CASA, without reading or having access to such agreement I would not be able to say what has breached it. However if it is as you say (and again, we have no way of knowing since nothing has been offically disclosed to the members) and CASA made these demands which the President agreed to, again would not be a breach of contract as the President does not have the authority to sign such contract on behalf of members. I have, however I have not reached the same conclusion as you, therefore I must be wrong

CASA's website has all the information you need to understand what they can do regarding poor performance of RA-AUS in meeting it's obligations. There is no requirement to appoint an administrator, or "take-over" recreational aviation administration. It's pretty black and white what will happen if they are not happy. After witnessing previous "grounding" of large operators over the last couple of years when safety concerns have been raised, do you really think its wise to try and call it a bluff? Lets get some professionals in to setup the SMS, recruit the right staff to oversee/administer (not just SMS but overall safety and operations), and lets get the board focused on what they should be doing, setting strategic policy for the future of RA-AUS and not getting mixed up in the daily operations (that's what the GM and staff are for)

You've done one more step and that is sharing your opinion/interpretation of said documents, your more then entitled to do so and I welcome the discussion, however on the point of whether a "Safety Manager" must be appointed who's sole focus is the SMS, your interpretation (in my opinion) is wrong. I agree 100% with you on this and it's amazing that RA-AUS has been able to get away with these poor systems, auditing and compliance for so long. A safety system must be put in place and I think Jim is on the right track on how we go about this both in respects to safety and cost efficieneny for members. Lets get the Professionals in and do it right the first time rather then run the risk of the ball being dropped. Once the system is up and running, maybe a position will need to be created to provide ongoing oversight and administration, maybe this same position can also provide auditing of other operations (ie registration, training), maybe this position could also provide investigation into any RA-AUS incidents or accidents, provide safety forums and training programs. If the Board and GM decide such a position is required then proper recruitment processes should take place to insure someone of the right skill and ability is selected (who may end up being Myles should he apply).

First I will admit, I have not read the entire document that you referred, however from what you have quoted (incorrectly), it talks about Establishing "a key person or office responsible for the administration and maintenance of the SMS", this does not need to be a stand alone position. It could also be in the form of a consulting agency. There is a requirement for the person/office responsible for SMS to not hold other responsibilities that may conflict or impair his responsibilities for the administration and maintenance of the SMS. However all this is moot, as it's in an ICAO document (and not even a final copy at that) and is not binding, its up to CASA to use recommendations from ICAO to design and publish their own requirements/regulations.

Any future board member who has already been elected (unopposed) should be requesting "observer" status for all current board meetings (conference calls) until Sept, so they have a good grasp of the issues at hand and the sticking points, that way come Sept they can all hit the ground running and have a functional board from day one after the AGM.

It was my understanding ICAO don't require a SMS Manager as such, but a manager responsible for SMS, it isn't required to be a stand alone position, and in fact the aviation company I work for with 3000 plus employees it is a General Manager (not to be confused with the CEO or Executive Manager) who oversees a range of systems/issues. It sounds like the what Jim is suggesting (and the board looking at) is a much more sound option for an organisation such as RA-AUS and something the GM or manager delegated could oversee. Just another example on why this issue should have been dealt with by the board rather then by 'executive' decision, explore all the options and have a democratic process as per the associations constitution.

Reduce the board to 7, voted by members (either region or nation wide), who's role is to set the overall policy/direction of RA-AUS. Appoint/hire qualified professionals for the running/management/day to day who has set goals/kpi's. A Chairperson is appointed by the board (from within) who's job is to insure the board and management are on the same page, but not get involved in the day to day. The GM is responsible for the management and day to day functions of RA-AUS.

I'm quite interested to hear the reasoning behind this as-well from the board members. If this has been an issue before the board, what were the pros and cons being discussed and why were so many board members against the position?

And how many months do you think we as members will have to wait until we are given the full story?

The RA-AUS website has the closing date for nominations 4PM 31st July 2013, surely must be a mistake, that is quite some time to have an empty seat at the table (add the time it will take for the votes to be sent out, returned and counted).

Sounds like the role RA-AUS could take up when they don't have to focus on regulations and registration. The main difference being it's optional for recreational pilots to join the association if they so believe RA-AUS can represent their interests/views (ie a lobby group) Note: I'm not saying CASA would be better then the current system, I don't think there is enough information out there to make such a conclusion at this stage (both in terms of what CASA would do and what the hell is going on within RA-AUS).