turboplanner

The 30 fatality figure I understand came from the CASA meeting - it was mentioned I think earlier in this thread or maybe another.

It is for all the Sport Pilot groups,so it's not just RAA, but there is comment on that post relating to RAA.

Yes GA to RA I have personal experience of; it's often discussed as 45 minutes to transfer from a Jab to Cherokee, 4<5 hours the other way; I'd say it would be closer to 10.

No one will achieve zero, but the common factors can be addressed. (Don't forget I've previously mentioned I've administered a dangerous sport in Victoria coming towards 50 years with zero fatalities.)

These days you don't get the option of the last line.

You mean like in the current, and for that matter past, training curriculum that everybody got assessed on to get their RA-AUS certs in the first place? or like you get tested on every bi-annual flight review?Do you feel your instructors havn't made an accurate assessment of your ability to put the aircraft into a glide? and if you do feel that way, why the hell havn't you done something about it? go practice for gods sake. Its your responsibility to be a competent pilot.

From my recollection about 6 to 8 pilots in recent times have let a perfectly good aircraft drop into a stall or spin killing themselves and their passenger.

They have not reacted instantly, subconsciously, to save their lives.

They never reached the second critical point where they had the opportunity to hit fences, trees etc at short-field speed and maybe break arms, legs at the most.

If we could achieve the first reaction across the board, our fatality rate would drop to insignificant, and there would be less families in that horrible never-ending distress.

On this forum, on a number of occasions quite a few posters have made it obvious that they are not going to react instantaneously. Some even have checklists which are almost essays where there is no chance of a subconscious reaction because they are checking which way the wind is blowing. Of course they can do all that after trimming for glide, but we're just talking about that fraction of time between full power and no power, and the need to save your life first.

In an SMS, a key safety point, proven to be dangerous, just gets a more emphatic procedure and a more emphatic assessment method.

If I was to follow your advice, and if my currency was such that I'd lost some of the instinct, then I could be one of the next statistics, and also it HAS to be done by surprise - it has to have the shock value that extends reaction time from 50/100 of a second to several seconds. We could all do it every time if we just pulled the throttle when we felt like it.

AS far as it being your responsibility to be a competent pilot, it hasn't been for about 25 years.

Is "call me a hypocrite" anything like "call me a cab?"

Pretty much, just a bit more blue smoke.

Would never do that buddy, I have too much respect for you , I may argue that your reasoning may be hypocritical in logic in this case though.

I'm not departing from years of work and saying a Constitution is there to be ignored.

My position is that it's critical to write a Constitution meticulously and precisely, and then to adhere to it.

Turbo delegation of work does not = delegation of responsibility.It to me is perfectly acceptable to delegate work and retain responsibility, but in doing so you obviously must check that work is being done and at a quality and timeliness that is acceptable.

Historical posts of Alpha and certainly emails show that he was routinely questioning progress of the CEO on a whole series of matters. That his view was clearly not a board view was hardly a secret to anyone!!! (just review the last AGM minutes......as poor a record of the events as they are.......) He specifically asked on progress with the list of action items, of which this was one....

 

Are you suggesting that he delegated responsibility?

 

Andy

It almost seems that you "and the group of which I am a part" have decided the latest method for a successful coup is to all beat me up at once; I am only a poor boy who had to leave school at the age of 26 to help out on the farm, but here goes:

Rather than split hairs yet again, this time over just conversation, let's go back to what CASA says:

4 (a) Ensure the organisation's SMS framework is current and up to date.

The pocket Oxford Dictionary defines "ensure" as make sure, secure, "ensure that thing will happen"

They are definitives (to be regarded as final, not subject to revision)

CASA does not say "Give it to Tizzard and if he doesn't do it well that's his fault"

History shows it wasn't done, and still isn't done

I'm not on a witch hunt for Alpha; I know he had a lot of problems in the dysfunctional atmosphere.

But you cannot as an organization which is non compliant, in not having a safety system, to a Safety Authority, while having an abnormally high fatality rate continue to defy that authority on the grounds that an official might not have acted in accordance with an Association Constitution. Aside from anything else you leave the association open to legal claims, and given that FTF's are workplaces, you run the risk of them wandering in to have a look at your procedures also.

The 26 page template sent to the FTFs was just that, a Template. The document we signed off in Feb 2012 was the base document for the system. What CASA wanted was for it to be auctioned and implemented, a not unreasonable request. But for the lack of industry on the part of our former CEO, it would have been rolled out 12 months back.So, clearly, CASA and I are in total agreement. :-/

OK so we've now established that there was not an SMS system in place in 2012, which is what I said. A base document and a shell proforma are just that, they are not a system with Manuals, training, culture changes, visible warnings, inductions etc.

What CASA wanted is irrelevant; In February 2012 Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. and probably CASA had been in default of operational safety requirements since 2010 that we have proof of, and probably long before that.

The February 2012 meeting was a step in the right direction, but as I recall Steve Tizzard was given the job of setting up the SMS, which very specifically was the written responsibility of each board member according to the CASA document and there was no provision for this responsibility to be delegated.

I was thinking of your own protection; contact me if you want.

You taking the situation very stoicly drifter - you do realise you are directly involved in the fallout from the earlier situations where the safety net didn't exist?

I certainly hope you are right Maj , although my experience with SMS leads me to think that we are more likely to get a new regulation enforcing painting the first 15 cm of each propeller blade with fluro paint

The one I want is how the instructor assesses that a pilot can immediately put an aircraft into a glide if the engine unexpectedly stops .

In which case, if true, he would need to be quickly fired, because of the massive workload which needs to be done, and the momentum of the FTF SMS manual developments, discussions on common procedures etc. This is not something that a single person can ever do, he has to co-ordinate and any screwing around will become immediately obvious.

However, just at this point a week is down already, but it's a bit early to audit the progress.

Good start, but while developers always sell properties like this for a mint, they always try to buy them as cheap as dirt.

Two things I can think of are:

Get together and pool resources to buy the land.

Ensure whether the Council intends to sell the land and if so ensure, by public campaigning, an open auction, so there's no doubt what the successful price will be.

If by that you mean democracy was being used to block them ... what is the alternative. I am certain democracy would have worked if the Board had been presented with the CASA ultimatum letter first, not some secret meeting with the President or part Executive or whatever it was that created the alleged 'emergency'.It shoulder NEVER have happened and attempting to justify it is completely hypocritical. How can breaking the rules of the constitution ever be justified, no matter what the reason? If we don't like the rules then action changes (some of which we have already done and many more yet to follow). But to be successful at that we will need bi-partisan support.

I've tried to address most of this, but there is a post somewhere from a former board member referring to a "panic" way back so I don't have any doubt the obfuscation of Presidents started long ago and we are just reacting to the final death throes of it.

Re breaking the rules of the Association, I've tried to put some perspective on that in my answer to Kaz.

The rules of the Constitution in this matter were broken at least three years ago, and that's where members' anger should be pointed to.

There are certainly people who could be held directly responsible for this fiasco, I agree none of it should have happened.

Above all else, if the Executives of the times and the board managers of the times hand not stayed with this ridiculous secrecy from members, it would not have happened becaise there would have been members who work in SMS Companies who would have immediately stepped in and pointed out the safety risk, and the non compliance risk.

Call me a hypocrite, but the current President did not contravene the Constitution as it is written, however I readily admit this all could have been resolved better if he had immediately posted on the RAA website a short bulletin of what was happening at each stage immediately - not the internal wrangles of the members over it, not in camera material (another job to adjust the constitution), but a simple, open statement, like we are seeing on the RAA site now. He obviously has his reasons for not doing this, but that's my only criticism.

And no - one can surely say that breaking all the rules, and a personal undertaking given at the EGM, was "right"? That's the first big step towards anarchy. History is littered with examples of such departures from the rule of law and their catastrophic consequences. In our little world they have caused division, distress and uncertainty commencing with the current LSA debacle and now the nepotistic appointment of a paid staff member.Kaz

Firstly, Incorporated Associations were introduced as a means of limiting risks to people in communities as they took up the slack from governments who were offloading risks.

It was recognised that the peer groups would come from all walks of life, some of limited education, so model rules provided a skeleton and wording was kept very simple, with a minimum of legalese.

You've previously contradicted my assessment of the RAA constitution where I concluded that clauses as written gave authority for the President to make the decision he did.

I argued that on the words that are written in the Constitution, you argued based on things which were NOT written in the Constitution, suggesting that might be what a Court would do.

I’m conscious that our court system flourishes on the fact that in every case heard, both lawyers believe their argument will be correct, but one lawyer will be shown to be wrong.

However, the day to day operations of an Association were never intended to take place under Court conditions, just the conditions which the peer members live in.

So I’d love to take you into VCAT, where I can stand against a lawyer and be heard, on that one.

However, even if you were 100% correct and the President had not complied with the unwritten Constitution, there are other more important clauses the President was bound to comply with:

The Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. Constitution, Clauses B4, and B5 bind him to do the following:

<B.4 To safeguard the interests of recreational aircraft clubs and similar bodies or any entity involved in activities connected with recreational aircraft flying in any of its branches and obtain for them such monetary or other assistance as may be possible by representations to Federal or State or any other appropriate authorities, persons or organisations.>

So the President had a much greater obligation, the minute he became aware of the failure of board members to carry out the duty laid down by CASA in the 2010 Handbook, and that RAA was in breach of the Deed of Agreement.

He had an imperative obligation under Clause B4 to protect clubs and FTF’s from losses arising from any sanctions handed down by CASA, and other more serious matters.

<B.5 To make rules and regulations as necessary and permitted by law governing aspects of recreational aircraft operations in which the Members of the Association or any of them are engaged and , in particular, but without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing to make rules and regulations governing certification of aircraft the conduct and activities of Members engaged in such operations in relation to the use and control of aircraft including recreational aircraft of all types during all stages of flight and the activities of Members whilst they are at, on or in the vicinity of any area from which such aircraft are being operated, launched or handled and also in relation to the ground handling, maintaining, constructing, repairing, testing, checking and transporting of the said aircraft.>

When the President of the day discovered that the board members were failing to meet their board member responsibilities as set out in the 2010 handbook, and realised there was no Safety Management System in place he had an urgent obligation to make the rules and regulations.

As you and many others say, this should have been done through the board members initially, who should have reacted with utmost speed, not just to approve the SMS project, but to ensure that a Safety Management System was developed in the form of manuals, personnel appointments, restructuring of responsible people and mirroring SMS’s throughout all areas of the Association’s responsibility.

That this was not done is evident by CASA’s ultimatums.

That a President finally recognised this and immediately acted is to be commended

Although some people are blaming two employees for “not doing it”, if you care to read the CASA documents, at no time was this able to be delegated to employees – it was, and is the job of board members, and while CASA are not specific on many things they are very specific on this.

The employees’ only mistake on this was not telling all board members in writing that CASA didn’t give them any option of delegating the job.

I’d like to address your comment “and now the nepotistic appointment of a paid staff member.”, and described by others as “jobs for the boys”

At the end of every war there is always some soldier who doesn’t get the message and keeps firing at people who are no longer the enemy, this is a good example.

The majority who appointed Steve Tizzard did not appoint Myles.

I don’t know Myles and I don’t know if he was in the CASA meeting and volunteered to step down as a board member, or whether there was a separate discussion, I don’t know whether he will be good or bad in the job, but it appears from the developments we’ve seen that he is acceptable to CASA, where we didn’t get that autonomy with aircraft registrations.

However, I do know strategy, and he has put himself in an very obvious, awkward position where he will gain nothing, "jobs for the boys" or otherwise.

He has stepped down as a board member, and as a result of what has been stirred up, may have lost the opportunity to be a board member again.

That’s a sacrifice FOR the members.

He would also have known that in taking on the job he faced a mountainous task. Many of you work day by day under SMS policies, and you know it doesn’t intrude significantly, the injuries are down, and the SMS manager has an easy time of it.

That is not the case for the poor devil trying to get the manuals written, and at the same time being told again and again “We don’t want all this cr$p”

So he would have known he was taking one for the members, would be in for a rough ride, and come September might have had it taken off him anyway.

Under those circumstances Kaz, your comments, and those of the others are unwarranted and hurtful to a person who is about to give a lot of his time for the members.

Turbs, you are entitled to your view and to associate with whomever you please.

And if people are wondering about Sue P's recent departure, they should direct their inquiries to Ed who i understand took another unilateral decision outside his role and his expertise. You might reflect on what that will cost us all.Kaz

I'll answer the other details shortly.

David,

I generally would agree with what you are saying if the clock started at the meeting between CASA, the President and possibly others a couple of weeks ago, the exception being that the misunderstanding outlined by Head in the Clouds, that he had board approval is not unreasonable, particularly since no one has contradicted that.

However, I was referring to an earlier time scale where we do have public information that the issue was considered urgent, and there was discussion after discussion where the two presidents were trying to get action on the SMS.

How can breaking the rules of the Constitution ever be justified? Well I'm usually the one in any meeting advocating that, but I just want to look something up, and I'll post shortly.

Ed chose to do that, but not in a way I support, especially when a supported way was eminently possible

The obfuscation dates right back into the Steve Runciman days, when he was acting quite correctly ion desperately trying to get Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. board members to meet their obligations under the Deed of Agreement with CASA.

I'm sure a solution might me eminently possible now with CASA leaving no alternative, but the cold hard truth is that what both Steve Runciman and Ed Herring were doing was necessary and right, and the Constituition was being used to block them.

In the UK, the Police always attend an air accident. but have absolutely NOTHING to do with any sort of investigation of cause, and our coroner can only complete a case when advised of the probable cause by the A.A.I.B. and no other organisation.

Funding will for sure come up as a big brick wall, so anything you can find out over time would be very helpful.

....an obtuse isosceles.

As we know, said Handy Andy who had been in training as a teacher, that is........"The bad guys are the good guys!" shouted Nobu, rushing into the classroom, we make terrible......and he fainted.

"What's up with him?" said the Rat who had been running his claws over his posterior trying to catch an evasive flea.

"I've seen him before" said the new US exchange student Chuck, who was 86 years old.

I was in the Navy, stationed at Pearl in November 1941, and we saw him standing down on the shore looking out to where the USS Arizona was berthed. He had a camera hanging around his neck, but none of us thought anything of it because we all knew every Japanese had a camera around his neck.

However we were suspicious, so we asked him what he was doing. "I rost Chuck San" he replied, is this way to Honoruru golf course?

"Well we knew that all Japanese would kill to get on a golf course, so we let him go. Big mistake!"

The Rat stirred; could it be......

From the Sport Aviation Self Administration Handbook 2010:"As part of the RAAOs’ Industry Risk Profile, the supply of and proficiency in safety data and information is key. Therefore RAAOs are to ensure that appropriate safety data and information management processes exist and provide CASA with a safety profile of their sector via six monthly reports.

 

This is to include:

 

• Accident and incident occurrences, including frequency and severity

 

• Accident and incident investigation and findings

 

• Records that safety analysis has been communicated to members."

 

Does RA-Aus do any of this?

 

I have not seen any evidence of the third item - "safety analysis [being] communicated to members".

 

DWF

What DWF found here could be the answer to getting aviation-based investigations of RA aircraft crashes.

As we know, the present situation is that Sate and Federal Police control the investigation and prepare a brief for the Coroner, whose primary responsibility is to determine the cause of death, not necessarily the cause of the crash, which might be outside his/her legal parameters.

Recreational Aviation Australia's expert may be called in to provide specialist advice to the investigating police, but they, except in rare cases, will not release any details of that brief.

So the result is a cone of silence relating to the crash, and no learning sequence for us, which could prevent a similar incident, which ironically is one of the duties of the Coroner.

From time to time on this site, some people have posted anecdotal information that "RAA was offered the opporunity for ATSB to investigate all fatalities but didn't pick it up"

What DWF found is an IMPERATIVE from CASA, probably part of the Deed, which RAA is in default on, so something has to be done and fast.

Except in this case it's a catch 22 - Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. does not have the legal powers that ATSB has.

Given the very high cost of getting ATSB to investigate RAA fatalities, my preference would be for the Federal Government to provide the investigative and reporting powers that ATSB has.

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc investigators, with their specialist knowledge of Ultralight aircraft dynamics and performance could then investigate at crash sites and publicly report aviation based lessons to be learned from the fatality.

Because RAA are in default of CASA requirements, there is an urgency, but it is also a golden opportunity.

From my experience with Planning matters where serial offenders are acted on by Councils, it always seems to take forever for something to be done. On one particular eyesore property covering a hectare or so, I'd thought the Council had given up only to me amazed that they'd been taken to Court, found guilty twice and sanctions had reached the point where Council demolition contractors were moving in.

So 18 months is not a long time.

However, the public impact of a person beating up a speedboat at close quarters resonated through the news media, the GA community and the authorities.

Co-incidentally there were some other crashes of unregistered aircraft around that time, with more negative publicity.

Why would anyone want to serve on the RAAus Board with all the crap that comes from the members?

Crap from the Members?

30 dead...no safety system...an in-place safety system has been the responsibility of RAA board members (NOT staff) for YEARS....failure to have a safety system in place is a breach of the CASA Deed of Agreement....CASA issue $60,000 sanctions warning, withdraw it when RAA President acts..... dissident board members very publicly defy the President by issuing Censure motion, CASA get more serious.....total silence of the board to members and thousands of people affected by this impasse......no safety system in place opens RAA and CASA to multi million dollar claim losses......on the present trend one among us on this site will die within the next 12 months.

Just join the dots and you'll see where this has been heading and why there will be a change regardless of the puffery and egos.

Silence from the people who have not only failed to comply with the day to day requirement of something most companies have in place around Australia, but have failed to comply with the direct communication of a SAFETY AUTHORITY - and you call the responsible reactions from members crap?

While Gavin might not have won an interpersonal skills award, it's my understanding that he didn't resign because of comments from members, but utter frustration with constant blocking from some board members. He probably would be a good person to talk to.

The mark of a true leader is the ability to be judged by his peers.

Yeah you were way off. Nothing happening here...........

Yes congratulations for all that Patrick, it would have been a massive, unexpected effort.

However it appears I have to cancel my earlier link which talked about routine etc etc, IF the Channel 9 Melbourne News has been correct tonight filming the aircraft landing in foig after two go rounds and a 1920's style situation where a Qantas Captain on the ground was trying to talk him down.

So rolling the emergency equipment was very much warranted, and the actions of the crew and the Qantas guy heroic.