Current Australian Motor Sport Approval Standards Acknowledged Internationally

[RaceTime]

CURRENT AUSTRALIAN MOTOR SPORT APPROVAL STANDARDS ACKNOWLEDGED INTERNATIONALLY


A proposal to develop an alternative regulation structure for motor
racing track and vehicle safety has been rejected by the Confederation
of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS).


CAMS President Mr Colin Osborne said a proposal to introduce an
additional layer of review by Standards Australia would provide no
benefits to the Australian motor sport community while exposing
circuits, event organisers and participants to financial risk.


"A move in this direction would be to the detriment of Australian motor
sport," said Mr Osborne. "The introduction of a new set of standards
could result in a sudden and steep rise in compliance costs that could
put some circuits and event organisers out of business and take
participation in motor sport out of the reach of many."


CAMS' current standards are recognised by the FIA, the international
governing body of motor sport, as being world's best practice. Last
year CAMS was officially recognised by FIA President Max Mosley as one
of the world's top motor sport regulators.


Australian motor sport already benefits from a set of internationally
recognised and endorsed standards established and maintained by CAMS.
Those standards are the product of more than 50 years of Australian and
world-wide experience.


CAMS' standing at an international level is illustrated in that it has
frequently been engaged by other governing bodies to provide advice and
assistance in the safety planning and management of various overseas
events. Most recently CAMS has been engaged by the Bahrain Motor
Federation to advise on the development of standards and procedures for
Formula One officials at the inaugural Bahrain Grand Prix to be
conducted in April, 2004.


"Whilst Standards Australia is of significant assistance to the
Australian community through its routine work of compiling or endorsing
standards for many things - from electrical appliances to baby toys - it
has no legitimate expertise or experience in relation to motor sport
safety," said Osborne.


"Comparing Standards Australia's motor sport safety expertise to that of
CAMS is like comparing a single grain of sand to an entire beach," he
continued.


Geoff Arnold, General Manager of Eastern Creek International Raceway
agrees.


"It's impossible to have a single national standard that applies to
Australian motor sport, simply because every circuit, and every event,
is different in any number of ways - some circuits are built on gravel,
others on sand or dirt," he said. "Any fixed standard imposed by a
non-specialist, outside organisation would not be flexible enough for
variations in the type and number of motor sport events and competitors,
which is something that CAMS understands and practices through the Track
Operators' Safety Guide."


Mr Osborne stated that CAMS is always willing to work with all circuits
and organisers to continue the development of its internationally
recognised standards for the benefit of the entire motor sport
community.

[Big Trev]

Interesting, when so many Companies use the IS0-9000 standard either wholly or as a basis for their business practices.

ISO-9000 is approved by Standards Australia, it is interesting that they refer to only "electrical appliances to baby toys", to me that reflects that they have no understanding of Australian Standrds.

What about AS/NZS-4360 Risk Management? I bet CAMS use(d) this as a basis for all their risk management stuff.

And AS/NZS-4801 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems and of the British Standard 18001 - Occupational Health and Safety Specification, which is almost a direct copy of AS/NZS 4801 except for the risk manangment part.

Odd that CAMS believe Australian Standards only have expertiese in "electrical appliances to baby toys", etc. Maybe they should logon to http://www.standards.com.au/catalogue/script/Search.asp and have a bit of alook around, they might be surprised!!!!

[GTRMagic]

Originally posted by Big Trev
[B]What about AS/NZS-4360 Risk Management? I bet CAMS use(d) this as a basis for all their risk management stuff.

Interestingly, food companies are some of the toughest from a regulatory poitn of view. ISO9000/9001/9002 is a relative doddle compared to keeping GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) and HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) plus the National Safety Council's 5-star rating, while you are at the mercy of the Theraputic Goods Administration when there is alcohol in the products... plus living with the happy people at the ANZFA (Australia & New Zealand Food Authority) who are the labelling nazis trans tasman....

It is overregulation at its finest, but on the most important items you will likely ever buy... food and beverages...

[RaceTime]

Someone correct me if I am wrong in my assumption here - but if CAMS are rejeting this, as I read from their media statemen, then wouldn't it be fair to say that have have a snowballs chance in hell of introducing any standards for officials????

[Big Trev]

They would claim they are already have them, but ask them for a copy and watch what happens.

If they do have have anything (which I doubt) it would be something developed by an outside group like the flaggies, etc. Which CAMS would probably plagiarise.

[RaceTime]

Thats not quite what I meant.

As I understand it, CAMS have stated that they want to get their training certified as accredited training - but to do that don't they have to go through some ISO process to have the certification and training methods approved?

So, if they are saying that they do not need an ISO standard for motor racing in general, how can they say they need it for officials?

[GTRMagic]

An ISO accreditation doesnt mean you do the job you say you are going to do in a good way either... it just documents the process, hopefully to the extent that it maps the methodologies, control lines, yes/no points to such a degree that to be accredited is a positive impact on your business.

The world is never quite so rosy however....

[Bigguy]

Originally posted by GTRMagic
An ISO accreditation doesnt mean you do the job you say you are going to do in a good way either... it just documents the process, hopefully to the extent that it maps the methodologies, control lines, yes/no points to such a degree that to be accredited is a positive impact on your business.

The world is never quite so rosy however....

I remember a company I contracted for went through endless hoops so it could proudly proclaim full ISO9000x accreditation.. Unfortunately, in doing all the checks it undertook to do, product rejection rates actually INCREASED by five percent!

As GTR says, ISO compliance is only concerned with the process, not the outcome.....

[spook]

The best feature of standards is that they are simply "Standards", they are not "guides", "guidelines" or "options". The latter leave scope for interpretation and bias, one of the core fundamentals of CAMS.

Safety should never, ever, be swayed by interpretation or bias. Standards are there to protect everyone. "Guides" have unfortunately cost many lives over the years.

[275 GTB-4]

Originally posted by Big Trev
If they do have have anything (which I doubt) it would be something developed by an outside group like the flaggies, etc. Which CAMS would probably plagiarise.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.....Australian Standards have largely been merged with world standards. The cover may say Aust/NZ but they are often word for word internationally approved content......

Re officials.......does anyone know what has happened to the CAMS Officials webpages?? There used to be links to on-line accreditation etc Now very plain jane and minmalist...:confused:

[1200Datto27]

I like the comment about how because tracks are built on different surfaces, a standard can't be set. I must remember to tell that to my builder mates when they are building houses to set standards on sand, rock, dirt and mud (sometimes all together) that it is not actually possible for them to do so.

Stephen

[RaceTime]

The whole release is just a cop out....

But - what is very interesting about this - I wonder how CAMS are going to explain to the NSW Minister for Sport that they are taking this view, whilst, at the same time, attempting to convince the NSW Govt they should be the ones capable of administering motor sport NSW, and then Australia, wide???

[Bigguy]

It is all very simple really, and you don't have to be Einstein to see how their minds work.

* The natives get restless across the country
* AASA appears on the scene
* Risk Management Standards are proposed for motor racing
* If these are adopted, the way is clear for multiple bodies (ie CAMS and AASA etc) to manage Australian motorsport conforming to these standards
* Therefore CAMS attempts to quash the standards, in the (doomed) hope that AASA will no longer be able to pose a threat.

I must say I am impressed by the cogent arguments put forward by Mr Osborne (NOT). I believe he is formally trained in the legal profession, but it doesn't show in his release....

[Big Trev]

Originally posted by RaceTime
Thats not quite what I meant.

As I understand it, CAMS have stated that they want to get their training certified as accredited training - but to do that don't they have to go through some ISO process to have the certification and training methods approved?

So, if they are saying that they do not need an ISO standard for motor racing in general, how can they say they need it for officials?

Normal process to get training recognised is to have it recognised by Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) (see http://www.anta.gov.au/)

But Yes to you question, ANTA have significant processes in place to accredit training packages.

Have a search around ANTA's web site, you will be surprised what you will find. Their logo is very identifiable.

[RaceTime]

The following letter was issued this morning by Bruce Polain to Jenny Thomson at CAMS in relation to the letter issued above Colin Osbornes signature. It sums up the stupidity of some of the comments in the CAMS release:

Jenny

Reference your press release of the 5th Feb would you kindly congratulate the President on his tasteless release.

The reference to baby toys etc was highly inaccurate as the Australian Standards way of doing things is to appoint experts from the industry involved - the ASO staff are merely coordinators of such expertise.

The grain of sand reference adds to the insult to the informed readers intelligence whilst the whole release has an underlying negativity which may demonstrate a lack of accuracy in any briefing on the matter which Mr Osborne may have obtained.

Given Mr Osborne's attitude of describing the AASA at a NSW State Council Meeting as "the enemy" it may be very significant that the idea of involving the ASO first came from the AASA.

It should be understood that many believe the AASA Board Members have far more experience in these matters than either COAG or Osborne himself and would therefore contribute significantly to ensure any ASO Standard was worthwhile and practical.

Regardless of the motivating personality clashes and ongoing power struggle to capture the hearts and minds of Australian Motor Sport once again there appears to be a self inflicted injury to the prestige and professionalism of CAMS.

Cheers.......BP

[Big Trev]

Who is Bruce Polain?

[Big Trev]

Does anybody else having the feeling that this may be a diversion from the egg-on-face episode over track licences?

[Dirk]

Sounds like a wise man!!

[RaceTime]

Bruce Polain is and has been a thorn in the side of CAMS for a number of years.

[Big Trev]

and a thorn as well :-)

[Codger]

Wise man indeed, Bruce is a long time motor sports competitor and very successful businessman who has been fighting the entrenched attitudes and practises of Cams for many years.
Many years ago, he organized the Seaforth Grand Prix which was a parade throught the streets of Seaforth on Sydneys North side which drew a great variety of cars such as F5000's, Sports sedans, Speedway cars, Touring cars, it was extremely popular but was axed by local council (from memory).
Good to see Bruce still fighting for the "little bloke", keep it up

[flagwaver]

Don't know how you look at ISO9000 over there but here in blighty it just means you can trace what you do with your product. Can still be a cr*p product though.

[Big Trev]

But the point of ISO9000 is continuos improvement. By having the process documented you can keep fine tuning and improving.

[Chris - Melb]

I think that you will find that the only reason business and companies adopt ISO standards is because they can’t avoid it, particularly if the want to be able to bid for government business, who insist on it.

I know that is the main reason a company I worked for adopted it.

Whilst there are good aspects to the standards in improving management of a business, there is also a lot of useless **** involved in it as well, and in my opinion, pretty clearly reduced the productivity of the company I worked for and added to expense.

If you don’t have to have it, best to avoid it.

[Big Trev]

WHOA EVERYONE

I suggested ISO 9000 as an example, that's all, I certainly wan't promoting its benifits.

I was a Quality Manager for a Training Company for 6 and a bit years, and I would be the first to agree that the 9000 series doesn't fit all, for a start it is a manunfacturing standard.

Chris, I think you will find that the Gvmt Authorities initially asked for a "system to ISO 9000", but these days they are a asking for "a system". They need to ensure consitentency of delivery and of quality. You don't have to be certified ISO 9000 to achieve that.

But I would certainly promote any system of continuos improvement. A manufacturing company I worked for as the OH&S Officer was using the Japanese model of TPM (Total Productive Manufacturing - I think that what was the acronym was?) which I thought was a good system, again based on continuos improvement.

I still believe that any "standard" that brings any sort of process to bench mark against is a good thing.

Despite whay Colin Osborne asserts, it wouldn't be difficult to develop "Standards" for motorsport (of any kind). He really should comment on things he knows about.