RA-Aus Battle with Junior Student Pilots

[Halden Boyd]

Hi Everyone.......Glad to be a new contributor to The Forum.

 

My son Tyler and myself have been involved in a tussle with RA-Aus which on the eve of Xmas revoked all student pilot licences to "our young eagles" under the age of 14 years and 6months old. The bombshell could not have happened at a worse time, and it a[ppears it was made without consulktation of the full Board, let alone giving RAA members the opportunity to have input into this sudden decision which had ramifications for the entire Australian aviation community.

 

The good news is this decision has been suddenly revoked after some pretty fierce lobbying. However we are not our guard down, because the battle is far from over.

 

At this point a big thanks to you all for helping in fighting this retrospective move. You can see what has been happening by following my Facebook page.

 

Thanks again and Happy Landings.....Halden Boyd 0428824111

 

 

[turboplanner]

Halden, there was a long thread on this somewhere. The cancellation related to legality, and I would hope the "suddeny revoked after some pretty fierce lobbying" incuded the thorough assessment of all the legalities, risks and insurance status which was discussed rather than some "fierce lobbying.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Folks,

 

This subject was the discussion of some very good debate some months ago on this site and some very constructive suggestions were made. Unfortunately that thread is no longer available for reference, so we can look at it with 'fresh' eyes.

 

What perplexes me is why this subject of minimum age for instruction has come up for review. We are talking here of 'under instruction' we are not talking of lowering the age of first solo below the current 15 years. Incidentally the minimum age for solo in GA is 16 years but in the proposed Regulation 61 (currently out for public consultation), CASA is proposing to lower the minimum age from 16 to 15 years for solo in GA.

 

There are two separate issues here, so lets not confuse them:

 

1. Proposals to Change Section 2.06 of our ops manual which allows a Junior member to have proper instruction below age 15 at the discretion of a CFI for suitability

 

2. Our Constitution currently does not allow for a Junior member.

 

To point one: it is difficult to understand why we need to set a minimum age for instruction, CASA don't appear to. What safety issue has come up that justifies this effort when I would have thought the Board have far more pressing issues to resolve. How can there be any increased risk from say a 12 year old under instruction than an 18 year old or older, after all the instructor is Pilot in Command not the child? There are far greater risks to instructors where say an 18 or older person freezes at the controls and the instructor has to over power them. Also I believe CASA originally approved the changes for Junior membership to our Ops Manual (which they have to do in any case) so where is this impetus for change coming from, certainly not CASA from what I see, a 12 year old can fly a Cessna under instruction.

 

To point two: that is easy to fix, in the interim by resolution of the Board we simply change the current 'Junior' member status (not permitted by the constitution) to ordinary member and the Board can set a special fee for below a certain age group as an ordinary member. Then as part of the constitutional reform we amend the constitution hopefully at the next AGM.

 

Hopefully some others will have some constructive comments on this.

 

Lets NOT turn this into a Board bashing exercise, lets be constructive to keep our Junior members please.

 

 

[Tomo]

G'day Halden, and Tyler! Great to see you here.

 

Tyler would know me, from Youtube (91thomo), and I have emailed him some photos from time to time of the fly in there a couple years ago.

 

Hope something gets sorted for you so he can be in the air sooner!

 

 

[David Isaac]

Halden, there was a long thread on this somewhere. The cancellation related to legality, and I would hope the "suddeny revoked after some pretty fierce lobbying" incuded the thorough assessment of all the legalities, risks and insurance status which was discussed rather than some "fierce lobbying.

The Board resolution following the AGM was that no NEW Junior members will be admitted (and indeed they cannot because the constitution has no provision for such) while the Board investigate the legal, risk and insurance aspects associated with very young members. The email from the CEO was simply a mistake in communications and was subsequently withdrawn, the withdrawal was a matter of a correction procedure.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

My recollection is that the CEO asked the Board about what minimum age should junior training be permitted from a safety perspective. Again, I believe that the action resulting from the ensuing Board discussion was that no new Junior Members would be admitted. As David I correctly says (above), that is simply reacting to the fact that the RAA Constitution ("Rules of Association" to use the legal term) do not list "Junior Member" as a "Class of membership".

 

I think that there does need to be a minimum age as in these days where common sense is a scarce commodity, some CFI may decide that a 5 year old can undergo training. A CFI's judgement of the individual must still be a criteria to prevent people asserting that an unsuitable individual be trained.

 

The solution is simple:

 

An amendment to the Rules of Association needs to be proposed and passed by Special Resolution at a General Meeting (which may be, but does not have to be an AGM). The amendment must create a new "Class of Membership". Whether it is an "Ordinary Member below the age of 16" or a "Junior Member" and with associated rights and privileges, does not matter.

 

I would suggest the retention of the "Junior Member" name for the Class to avoid confusion, and the rights should not include voting rights or being eligible to hold Office.

 

At the covered age range, understanding the RAA governance and political issues is very unlikely. Even many adult members don't fully comprehend. Allowing Junior Members to vote is effectively just giving their guardian a vote (or an extra vote if already a Member).

 

One of the issues discussed previously, which I don't think we ever answered satisfactorily was the legality of a person having a vote when below the age where they are permitted to sign a contract. The age at which a person may sign a contract needs to be attained before a member is able to hold Office in RAA.

 

These two aspects require that the separate "Class of Membership" not simply be a discounted fee, but actually cover the rights and obligations of the Class correctly.

 

I'd be interested to hear how "Junior Members" have been allowed to resume without a constitutional amendment. Accepting them as Ordinary Members with a discounted fee is not constitutional, as it is discriminatory to treat different members of the same Class of membership differently. Ordinary Members may have grounds to appeal such a decision. The other aspect is that as Ordinary Members, it raises legal issues in relation to voting and holding office.

 

 

[Halden Boyd]

Thanks for that David. Well put. Hopefully some good will come from all of this. You can follow the drama as it unfolded on my Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551929337

 

There were some pretty unhappy dedicated young kids out there, and some pretty upset parents and members of the aviation community.

 

Thanks again for your very constructive thoughts on what will become I feel a very lively discussion in coming months.......Halden VH-EVD VH-EWR Based YEVD

 

Happy New Year and Happy Landings

 

 

[Halden Boyd]

Thanks also David 10......some very good thoughts here too. With a positive outlook and attitude I am certain a lot of good will come from what has transpired over the past week.

 

Thanks again.....Halden

 

 

[Halden Boyd]

G'day Halden, and Tyler! Great to see you here.Tyler would know me, from Youtube (91thomo), and I have emailed him some photos from time to time of the fly in there a couple years ago.

 

Hope something gets sorted for you so he can be in the air sooner!

Cheers Tomo......good to see you and compliments of the season. I'll get Tyler to touch base as he and his mates have started a new virtual airline www.qantasvirtual.com and he is now flying with a mob of his RAAF Air Cadet mates on a new cool site. Leave Tyler a message on his FB.

All the best.....Halden

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think that there does need to be a minimum age as in these days where common sense is a scarce commodity, some CFI may decide that a 5 year old can undergo training. A CFI's judgement of the individual must still be a criteria to prevent people asserting that an unsuitable individual be trained.

 

It doesn't seem to have been a problem in GA

 

An amendment to the Rules of Association needs to be proposed and passed by Special Resolution at a General Meeting (which may be, but does not have to be an AGM). The amendment must create a new "Class of Membership". Whether it is an "Ordinary Member below the age of 16" or a "Junior Member" and with associated rights and privileges, does not matter. I would suggest the retention of the "Junior Member" name for the Class to avoid confusion, and the rights should not include voting rights or being eligible to hold Office.

 

A separate class of "Junior" with discounted fee and no voting rights doesn't fall foul of any law but I can see some issues arising if the young person applies for full membership and is rejected on the ground of age alone. Most kids are regarded as "Gillick" competent by age 13 or 14 these days. Where a lawful discrimination may arise is if the RA insurer's actuarial data shows a distinct elevation in risk and the fee is adjusted accordingly.

 

One of the issues discussed previously, which I don't think we ever answered satisfactorily was the legality of a person having a vote when below the age where they are permitted to sign a contract. The age at which a person may sign a contract needs to be attained before a member is able to hold Office in RAA.

 

There is nothing to stop a young person entering into a contract at law... it's just enforcing it that becomes difficult. I can't see that a handful of very young Ordinary Members with voting rights could change the results of an election in an organisation with a membership base of 10,000.

 

My own view is that we should be doing everything humanly possible to encourage young members and to get them flying. They are the future of aviation in this country in more ways than one. The biggest problem for the airlines now is that young people no longer have the ambition to take up aviation as a long-term career. The lack of HECS funding for flying training is a futher disincentive. RA has a comparitively huge base from which to set the standards and direction of the future. I think we should be doing all we can to attract youngsters early in their secondary school years and I grieve the decline in groups like the ATC in recent decades.

 

kaz

 

 

[ahlocks]

Thread locked and a couple of posts removed from view while emotions settle.

 

 

[ahlocks]

The thread is now open for further discussion of the topic - The removed posts will not be returning

 

Participants must observe forum rules and basic etiquette. No posting of personal correspondence without the originating author's permission. Disagreements and rebuttals must remain civil.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Thanks for the legal view, Kaz.

 

 

[cazza]

Everyone,

 

CASA has a DRAFT copy of Part 61 on their website for consultation until Feb. It contains a lot of information about the Recreational Pilot's license and conditions and requirements. Part 61 seeks to institute regulations that bring Australia into line with ICAO. Attached is part 61.055 which allows anyone to train without a license, but they must have a license to pilot an aircraft solo. (See the section on the student pilot license.). Part 61 also states a student pilot license can be obtained at 15 (a year younger than is currently the case). The FAA and the British CAA also allow training with no lower limit.

 

CASA wants responses to this draft. So if you feel strongly one way or the other, you should make a response. If you are a member of RAA, you should also contact your Board member with your views. After all, Board members are REPRESENTATIVES.

 

Cheers, Cazza

 

 

[kaz3g]

Thanks for the legal view, Kaz.

Welcome