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.

I felt strongly enough that I got my Facts (much like Turboplanner did) straight from the source, rather than relying on Forums, Emails etc - As Abraham Lincoln once said - "the trouble with quotes on the Internet is they're hard to verify".I spoke to my Board Member, asked the question(s) I wanted answered, got the answers, and was satisfied the action our ex-President took was both legal, and neccessary. Now, with our Executive gone, I feel it's time for the most vocal members on here to "put up or shut up" and show us, the general membership, the way forward - after all - those most vocal members must have the answers. Time to put Forum words into Action and lead RA-Aus out of the hangar and into the air... can you do it fellas?? And i'm saying this in the nicest way - sans vitriol or anger - I just genuinely want to see those Vocal people come up with the goods they promised they could deliver!

 

And finally... hopefully there will be no more personal insults on here. [removed*]

 

Safe Flying fellow Aviators

 

*there are limits - Mod xox

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.

Hi NickNo gossip just a question.Had to ask the question regarding "Aerosafe".. Just to verify. Wonder why a suspicion of gossip?

Imagine the roar and it won't be from the zoo, if aerosafe has been discovered to have a conflict of interset.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page

Jim Tatlock.

For those of you wanting to come up with an alternative, these things are relevant:1. CASA either applied a $60,000 sanction or threatened to apply a $60,000 sanction because, over a number of years RAA has resisted setting up an SMS and employing an SMS Manager as it is required to do under the deed of agreement. I keep hearing this but have not seen it written or confirmed by CASA. CASA have with-held money in the past until RAA satisfied their requirements.

 

So those of you suggesting I'm misquoting or who don't know what "ensure" means, should note that you are not really arguing with someone on an internet, you are arguing with CASA. Certainly the CASA documents don't say "please yourself" and the ICAO document doesn't say "if you feel like it">

 

Not only that, you have put yourselves in the precarious position of arguing against a safety item in defiance of a Safety Authority. One document I have read from CASA in relation to safety indicates concern of our governance. So I would argue that then ignoring correct governance is not the best way for the RAA to go in a attempt to appease CASA.

 

I think we can safely say, that for CASA to have applied a sanction stating a specific requirement, THEY know whether they called up the ICAO clause and or issued instructions doe their organization to employ a specific person or not.

 

You can argue with CASA, but I'd suggest that would finish up costing around a quarter of a million dollars, and at the end of it you could still be facing a series of very quick audits with the final helper of being grounded until you did comply with their directive. Turbo I'm in total agreement here!!

 

2. If RAA, through it's President responded to CASA's action by agreeing to set up an SMS and employ an SMS Manager immediately, that would constitute a contract. (You can argue whether he had the power to do so if you like) So the discussion now is leaning towards a breach of contract. As you say I can argue. I do not believe the president had the power to enter into a contract with CASA. If he does not have the power there is not contract.

 

The outcome of that is either a contractual problem, if the President, as I maintain, had the power to make that decision, or back to square one, if he didn't. i.e. CASA would be likely to apply a $60,000 sanction as the first of a series of warnings leading to groundings unless RAA complied with what the have specified which is (a) an operating SMS and (b) an SMS Manager. There is that $60K again.

 

So you need to think that through and come to your own conclusions.

 

You can certainly condemn the current board members for continuing the veil of secrecy about the CASA meeting which, if published would have sent a message out to all FTF's and pilots everywhere to smarten up their attitude to safety, but what you are facing with CASA's demands has to be met one way or another. I have been waiting for information from the CASA meeting. I was not invited. I think there was a meeting last Wednesday. No report has been given to the board as of yet.

 

Jim, for what you were suggesting, if a contract exists, and I think it does, you could go to CASA and tell them you believe you could get a better result by setting up the system first by and agreed date,and then employing the manager to go straight into an operations role by an agreed date. Turbs, you are correct. I am waiting to receive a report from the president before I approach CASA with alternative suggestions. Obviously I want the board to work as a team, follow protocol and decide democratically on a direction to deal with the current issues RAA is facing. Ie: Act as a board.

 

They may then amend their demands and that would form an amendment to the contract, but being an organization in a high risk business which has resisted compliance for years, it may be too late for alternative paths - the directive may have come from higher up. I have no doubt CASA will support any direction we choose as a board to achieve assurance.

Regards,

Jim Tatlock.

All I can see is an image of AlphaRomeo jumping up and down in glee yelling "I was right, I was right!" As the smoking reck of RAAus lies around his feet. Two quotes comes to mind; "Hindsight is a wonderful thing" and "If your not part of the solution then your part of the problem". Politics and ideologies are both good past-times but rarely solve problems (usually they cause them). There are still more problems, so we try and find the best solution we can in the time given. The first question I would have is "what is our time frame?" Some seem to think that CASA will never really act, some seem to think Armageddon is tomorrow, what is the truth? Is it time to act, or is it time to minutely dissect every word spoken and every decision made?

Jim

SpriteAH and Rhysmcc - I provided the linkage in the form of CASA's RAA board member duties, CASA's ICAO call up and the ICAO document and the Job Specification.If you want to make your own interpretations you have to live with them.

 

What is hanging over all of us is that RAA does not have a safety system in place, does not have the people on the ground auditing compliance and guiding participants, and every fatality which occurs is a potential major risk. That's the overriding urgency, but CASA are correct in what they are demanding.

Regards,

Jim Tatlock.

Thanks Jim, I hope the others are able to reason it through as you have done. Thank you also for keeping us informed. This is exactly what people have been saying about good governance in this thread, this is an example of it. What do you think of more face to face board meetings, it seems to me that your backs to the wall some what when you can't be eye ball to eye ball when discussing issues as important as this one.

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.

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

There very definitely is a need for open and transparent performance metrics for Board members and, as an incoming Board member, I'd be happy to see each member's voting record be a part of that. This is something I and at least a couple of others intend to pursue, assuming we have the numbers in the new Board come September.

Jim

(YES Turbo):- Steve and Ed were being voted down by the board, by a majority rules thingo when we vote. Hence Ed's emergency actions.Thank you ED. Thank you Myles for stepping up to the plate.

Their (board) main gripe was "We can not afford that (SMS)". News we have to afford it or close shop.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

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

Well question 1 would be irrelevant because we now know that a Safety Management System is a compulsory part of the CASA Deed of Agreement, and was required to be in place at least three years ago and requires an SMS Manager (Not sure where the STCC term came from, but the SMS position would involve training)Question 2 we probably know the result of the feeling based on the posts in this thread and the other one.

 

However, we also know that CASA have warned RAA of its non compliance on several occasions over the years, and now appear to have imposed a Sanction ($60,000), or threatened to impose it, and withdrawn it on the basis of the President's immediate action and the person who would be acting as the SMS Manager until September.

 

So there would need to be a question asking people, would they be prepared for this to be reversed and to face a CASA sanction process similar to registrations, but this time relating to Flying School and Pilot compliance rather than aircraft.

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.

I'm not a friend of Ed'sI'm not close to Ed

I did not get my information from any Facebook lounge

 

I have not suggested you are lying

 

And for TerryC's information, I was not attempting to lead this thread into a direction to suit some unstated, but disappointing purposes.

 

There has been a comment made to me by a credible source, that Ed Herring would only take on the Presidency under certain specific conditions, wrote them out and asked for agreement or disagreement from each board member and that activation of an SMS, or words to that effect, and the appointment of the SMS Manager, or words to that effect, was specifically mentioned as one of those conditions, and that the board members gave a unanimous "Yes" approval.

 

So, yes, if I took the word of my source, I would know the answer to the question, and I could have made a statement based on that, but I wanted to be sure.

 

The reason the answer is so important, is that if the board members answered "yes", then that was a board vote and can be seen to be a board vote, and the interminable discussion that the President wasn't acting in accordance with the Constitution goes away, the basis for your Censure motion.

 

By answering truthfully, board members are not discredited at all, I'm sure they just didn't understand what they did.

 

I'm not saying my source is correct and it was a unanimous decision, I'm just asking for an open confirmation of Yes, or No to settle everyone down.

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.

quote{"RAAus has been aware of the need for inventing a SMS, for over two years (maybe many more than two) but due to lack of consensus by the board nothing has been done. And it looked like nothing was continuing to be done in spite of all the board's deliberations. " (end quote) }

I'm a simpleton!....I know , so that's OK (with me) ; How-ever if the RAA deed of agreement with CASA , 'REQUIRES' an SMS Officer,

 

why the Bl**dy hell does it need a consensus from a disfunctional board of representatives. As I said .....I'm a simpleton!

 

Seems to me it's as 'they' say .....it's a no-brainer !!

 

So tell me why?...............(please.......keep it simple)

Jim.

After all the instability of the past couple of years the board still cannot make the distinction between governance and management. If our own health was as bad as RAAus we would go to the doctor.....the board needs professional help instead of the so called management remedies often promoted on this forum.Without proper governance starting with a strategic plan and performance based management, this organisation will lurch from disaster to disaster. Lets get back to basics, learn from the mistakes of the past and make some real investments in restructuring for the future.

There must be ordinary members, such as myself, that are in despair of a way out of this mess. Lets concentrate on bedding the board into its real role.....as a starting point

 

Pete

Well I guess he has to survive the coup attempt first, although what has emerged today puts any board member since June 2010 under somewhat of a cloud.I do have a question for the board members though, particularly John McKeown and Jim Tatlock:

 

Is it true that when the board members voted a unanimous YES to support the President, did his request include a specific requirement/agreement to appoint a Safety/Training Manager?

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.