Spriteah

If you are having troubles the first thing I would do is make the headsets Identical. Your supplier will tell you they will work together but he has a financial vested interest. Sometimes they will. Sometimes they wont. Jim.

Don't push last light. Much smarter approach to flight planning.

SA and Turbo did you speak to other board members? Or just the one that made the decisions? Do you not think board members also spoke to the Ex-President and were not satisfied? Is it possible you have only one side of the story? Wasn't it suggested we would be shut down weeks ago, hence the emergency? Are we shut down? Will it happen tomorrow? No. These forums are sometimes incorrectly spooked by the doomsday prepers. You encourage members to get the facts themselves however I suspect you do not have them. If we run the organisation correctly, comply with CASA requirements, follow the constitution we should be around forever. If we don't do the right thing we wont be! Regards, Jim Tatlock. Victorian State Representative Ra-Aus

Turbo - A good name is better than riches.

Rest assured the board is working to rectify this situation and I'm sure it will be resolved in the very near future. CASA are aware of the circumstances. Regards, Jim Tatlock Victorian State Rep RA-Aus board.

Keith if Aerosafe were ex Casa potentially no conflict. However if Aerosafe resigned from CASA yesterday and formed to accept a contact tomorrow that would be a conflict of interest of the highest level. Very similar to what you have been vigorously defending in this thread. Jim Tatlock.

Turbs I have responded within your post with underlined text. Regards, Jim Tatlock.

It's time to act in consultation with CASA following correct governance practices. Not hard really. Just follow the rules and get it right. Just don't rush and panic and panic and rush and kneejerk and fix it today and hope it will all work out. Jim

Turbo, My interpretation yes. Also indicated to me that CASA supports my interpretation. With that stated when the future SMS is in place it may well require a dedicated staff member. I personally doubt it due to what I envisage the system to be and how it will function. But I have been wrong in the past and am prepared to be again some time in the future. Regards, Jim Tatlock.

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

Turbo, You do not need a stand alone manager. It needs to have a focal. It could be the GM, Ops or Tech, or board individual for that matter. Jim.

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

TK58 you will have my absolute support on that issue. Jim

Keith, Can you indicate where in the minutes of meetings Steve and Ed were being voted down? I don't think a motion was ever put up. Even tell me which meeting and I will review them? I very much doubt you can. And if what you said was correct (which I do not believe it is) then you are supporting actions against governance. Lets look at that concept. I put up a motion and the majority of the board vote against it. I don't like that so I do it anyway because I believe it is important (my emergency). Every member on the board that puts up a motion thinks it is important hence they put the motion. Secondly which board members said "we can not afford that"? We can afford lots, we pass it onto the members. As a board we do consider implications to the members (ie costs). And if you review our balance sheet you can see what the staff wages component is. As a growing organisation the office will continue to grow unless we can streamline processes such as registrations and licences. Electronic systems similar to Roads corporations need to be implemented so that once we are completely satisfied with a file it can be automated. Then all we need is an audit system to check a percentage of automated files per year to confirm compliance. Keith I strongly urge you to run for a position on the board. We need passionate people that are prepared to work for the membership. But make sure you read up on the duties first. It's not a can do position. That leads to board failure. Regards, Jim Tatlock. Victorian State Representative.

What year are those minutes. If im not mistaken the last full board meeting was 10-11 of feb. Are you referring to the exec?

I too have had enlightening conversations with Michael Monke and believe the skills he could bring to the RAA board would greatly benefit our future. As an organisation we are expand ever so quickly but not governing for the future. Hopefully now we have a competent General Manager the board can move its focus from the day to day to planning for the future. Jim

Question 1: In the deed I see a date of September 2012 for an SMS to be implemented. I might ad this is the date the Deed was signed so impossible to achieve unless there was already one in place. Where and in what document does it state a SMS manager is required? Does it need a specific position or can it be tasked to an individual as the focal? I've heard this comment twice now and researched but not found an answer. Turbs if you can direct me to the source I would be appreciative. Question 2: You would really want to see a high percentage of approval of membership if possible. Not 50%. However it could depend on the issue. Turbs are there threats of CASA sactions? Are they documented? I have been informed that CASA has withheld money before when RA-Aus has not been compliant. Then when they were compliant the money returned. Certainly I do not support being uncompliant. But I do not support kneejerk response to issues that have significant costs to the RA-Aus and might not be the most prudent solution, rushed solutions often turn pear shaped and costs often snowball. Jim Tatlock.

Totally agree Turbo. A similar allegation was levelled against one of the election applicants over the Feb 9th meeting. The RA-Aus board took it very seriously and conducted a IT forensic investigation of the offices and did not establish any breach or unlawful release of email details (to the best of my knowledge). I have spoken to the member and he explained how he has lawfully compiled a list of email addresses. I would be careful what I accused other members of on a public forum if you cannot substantiate the allegation. There is no Parliamentary Privilege here! As Turbs has stated this thread is steering off the topic somewhat. Perhaps SAJF wants to start a dedicated thread re: emails? Regards, Jim Tatlock.

Turbo, A post on a forum is not a board vote. It is a post on a forum. We have a formalised process to vote on our board and that has not yet occurred. Regards, Jim Tatlock.

Ian it doesn't need a consensus. It's a gimme. We implement it to CASA satisfaction or we might be uncompliant with the Deed. The issue is how we implement it. Can an individual just decide I'll do it this way (my way) at significant cost outside their authority and select an implementer who might or might not have the required skill set to be effective. Or do they follow protocol and discuss the matter with a collective board who are appointed for that exact reason. Then if required conduct a vote to choose a preferred majority direction. Jim Tatlock.

Ian, the deed does not mention a requirement for and SMS officer. It does refer to a safety managent system be in place. Jim.

Well said and spot on in my opinion.

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.

RAAus members. I can only post information from our boards that I wrote as I have been criticized before for sharing others comments. But I will say that on the 9th of April 2013 Steve Runciman provided us with a paper with his views that we need to employ a training officer etc. I responded with the following: Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:15 AM Steve and board, Speaking as a person who holds OHS qualifications I fully support this idea. Although I am concerned as to the amount of staff wages we are spending the reality is that CASA will be looking at us under a microscope due to the fatality rate. We should be researching why there is an increase in incidents and actioning items. This is a great first step and increased safety training can only improve our organisation. I am happy to provide any assistance you require if the board decided to take this course of action. Regards, Jim Tatlock. Recently CASA organised a meeting to discuss the fatality rate (in the week of Steve Runcimans resignation). I immediately called the secretary and offered to fly to Canberra to assist with the CASA meeting as Steve R would not be attending and I believe it wise to have OHS representation present. The secretary did not want me to attend. I'm cannot say whether my attendance would have made a difference, I can say it certainly wouldn't have hurt. Regards, Jim Tatlock

Hello again. I wish to add some information for the members. Many are asking why was this position not created long ago and why is it such an emergency now. I share in this question. When I found out that we operate under a 'deed of agreement' with CASA I asked where I can view it. This surprisingly was not in the possession of many of the board members and took some effort to get it. After reading it I become concerned that the RAA was not meeting its obligations and I posted to following on the Board Representatives forums: Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:06 AM Board Members, After reading the deed of agreement I have some questions. 1. Under Schedule D Pg22-23 there are requirements for us to create and roll out a Safety Management System. Have we so far complied? Are we on track with upcoming dates? Is there a current action/business plan tracking our progress with completing our requirements? What if any resources are tasked with achieving the CASA requirements within the allocated time frame? 2. Is this deed confidential? I note several paragraphs referring to confidentiality under Clause 19 however I suspect that is in reference to our dealing with CASA and not the deed itself? Regards, Jim Tatlock Interesting enough only one board bothered to reply being John McKeown and that was supporting that the document should be shared with the membership. I might at that the post was viewed 47 times to date. On the 10th of February 2013 at the board meeting I raised the issue with the full board. I was told by Steve Runciman that RAA has a SMS in place and that we need to improve it but it is not urgent. This role was given to Zane of Op's with a close out date of December this year (from memory). It is fair to say after this I don't think any of the board present believe there is any urgency which is now being pushed onto us. On the 11th of April Steve Runciman posted that we had not met 3 of 5 requirements in the deed. After what had been said in the board meeting this came out of left field. Jim Tatlock.