New LAA CEO!

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:19 pm

New Chief Executive Officer Appointed
Richard (Rich) Dunevein-Gordon will succeed Peter Harvey as the CEO of the Light Aircraft Association in September 2011. He joins us after a long career in the Royal Air Force as a wing commander in the Logistics Branch, having had significant experience with engineering and airworthiness in the VC10, Hercules, Sentry and Harrier Integrated Project teams. His career has also seen him involved with strategic planning, change management and training development, and he has served in a number of operational theatres.
A keen pilot, Rich’s passion for aviation was kick-started when he soloed a glider at 16 with the Air Cadets, with whom he won a Royal Air Force Flying Scholarship allowing him to gain his PPL. He has been a tug and parachute pilot, and a gliding & SLMG instructor. His power flying logbook ranges from RF3 to Jet Provost via Harvard, and he has been part owner of a Fox Moth. He has also helped rebuild a Dragon Rapide with the Duxford Aviation Society. Rich has formed Flying Clubs in the UK and overseas, and is currently flying at the RAF Lyneham Flying Club. As well as being involved with LAA aircraft, Rich has an ambition to participate in UK air racing.
On receiving this appointment Rich said, “I’m excited about my new career with the LAA, working with the staff and volunteers to steer the Association’s important work through the challenges that lie ahead. I look forward to meeting as many of the Association’s members as I can, starting at the Annual Rally at Sywell this year”.
Rich will be joining the team on 1st September in time to attend the rally on 2nd- 4th September 2011.

pbflyer · Post by **pbflyer** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:56 am

We welcome Rich to his new position and also thank Peter Harvey for the sterling work he has done on behalf of the members. Good luck for the future.

ChampChump · Post by **ChampChump** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:35 pm

I'll make it another one, Rod.

Cross-reference to the discussion on Flyer
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=71737
now up to three pages...

Post by **John Dean** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:57 am

Following a post which was highly critical of our employed staff, I have deleted subsequent posts.

Can I remind everyone that as a members organisation the staff are OUR employees and if you have any criticism of them there are proper procedures to be followed.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:00 am

Thanks John!

Bob F · Post by **Bob F** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:42 pm

What was the outcome of the expulsion threat against Welshman? I know he winds people up, but he does enliven the Forum! It's not that I agree with his comments, I just wondered about the "Summary Justice" that seemed to be implied in a post that was also subsequently deleted.

Just for the record, I know our staff do a sterling job.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:49 am

Hi Bob, truth is nothing has yet been decided. Personally (and that means unofficially of course) I would like to think that Ron (Welshman) will realise that he overstepped the mark of reasonable behaviour and formerly apologises to the staff for his unwarrantable comments about them. They are just ordinary folk like you and I, doing a job of work to make a living, and I might add, doing a damn good job because they genuinely have a love of the Association and a warmth for the members. They are not in a position to defend themselves against unfair and unreasonable comment and, like John Brady, I see no reason why it should be tolerated in any shape or form.
The directors of course are another matter. We’re daft enough to do this on a voluntary basis and are generally thick skinned enough to take the flak, although I must admit there are times when you wonder why you bother. I can’t help feeling that Ron’s angst was really aimed at us, after all it was the board (actually the Chairman and vice chairmen) that selected the new CEO and made the announcement once the deal was signed and 100% confirmed. Our heinous crime of course was posting the news of the appointment on the news section of the home page rather than on this forum, something we actually do with all news but apparently a wholly unreasonable action in this case.
Rod posted the notice here within a couple of hours or so, making it a topic for discussion, and to be honest I am a little disappointed that rather than welcome Richard into the Association and wish him well, the topic has become unnecessarily vitriolic.
My view regarding sanction for unreasonable behaviour on the forum is that you get a warning to clean up your act, and if you continue to be unreasonable you are denied access to post. I would not support any stronger action than that in the normal run.
All Associations have some form of ultimate weapon of dismissal for those who seek to cause damage to the association or whose actions become intolerable, but that should only be invoked in extreme cases.
So, I think Ron should accept he over-reacted, formally apologise to the staff and accept a warning that he needs to think twice about what he has written before pressing the 'Submit' button in the future. We can then move on and do what we should have been doing in the first place – welcoming Richard, wishing him well and doing our best to help him settle in and become part of this wonderful association of ours.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:55 pm

Good post Brian. John Dean is the moderator, so he should be the one to handle situations like this – that is his job! I would hope that the ultimate sanction of chucking people out is very very uncommon and only used after all other avenues have been exhausted. The posts were only on line for a few hours so although it was very poor judgment I suspect very little harm was actually done.

On a happier note, I would like to join Brian in welcoming our new CEO and wishing him a happy and lengthy stay with our association!

Rod1

Nigel Ramsay · Post by **Nigel Ramsay** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:32 pm

Seconded Rod1, let's hope we can actually get back to our 'Can Do' ethos rather than 'Can't Do' under our new CEO. I personally look forward to meeting him at the Rally where hopefully he will get a good introduction to the grass roots of our association, if he survives the evening session, he'll have passed the members part of his induction!

If you are watching Rich - WELCOME!

Alan Kilbride · Post by **Alan Kilbride** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:50 pm

Welcome to the new CEO from me.

If I don't get to bend his ear at the Rally. Here is what I would like him to take on as a matter of great importance.

If it don't say you can't....................YOU CAN

Reduce the health and safety commitments. "I am a big boy and can stick my finger in a meat slicer if I am daft enough"

"How can we help him/her" instead of "How can we stop him/her"

tnowak · Post by **tnowak** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:02 am

Having just sat through an internal, 2 hr company "death by PowerPoint" refresher briefing on H&S, I think I can safely say that "Reduce the health and safety commitments" just won't happen.

The LAA will need to do what is required in today's H&S culture. Duty of Care stuff....
Tony N

Planemike · Post by **Planemike** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:25 am

Maybe time to change the culture........???

How about the return of common sense and taking personal responsibility for one's own safety in many areas?

H&S certainly does great things for job creation (and that is without counting in the army of lawyers who busy themselves with H&S law) but one does have to wonder how useful and productive many of these jobs are.

Planemike

Ian L · Post by **Ian L** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:00 pm

Interestingly on a recent radio programme the head of the HSE said that OTT HSE rules were down to organisations over interpreting legislation rather than the legislation itself.
If interpretation is that wide then maybe the rules need to be clarified, we all know of village fetes and other events being stopped by this process.

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:59 pm

I work in the H&S area in the oil industry. The vast majority of what I see which is supposedly driven by HSE requirements is window dressing of unpopular decisions or colossal risk aversion why people who do not know any better (usually councils and recently some LAA decisions) or are based on labour disputes.

The actual level of H&S requirements has not changed significantly in years - apart form the new chemical 'thing' (forgotten the acroymn!).

What has changed in that so many people use H&S as a lever to try and achive other things - for which they should be robustly slapped down.

Planemike · Post by **Planemike** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:40 pm

True words there ............. gasax. We all want to be safe but H&S should be our servant, not our master or god. The thing is that the legal fraternity see it as an area for rich/easy pickings.

COSSH.............!!! No , don't ask me what it stands for !!!

Planemike